Manish Makhija Vs. Central Bank of India and others

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

WRIT PETITION, 14166 of 2017, Judgment Date: Feb 15, 2018

Law laid down -

Section 14(1) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002- satisfaction of Magistrate- not specifically required to be recorded. The satisfaction is regarding adjudicating that nine points of declaration are covered in the affidavit. It does not call for any modicum of enquiry into the veracity or justification or the decision of declaration or any aspect thereof. Even if the word “satisfaction” is not recorded by the Magistrate but his satisfaction can be gathered from his order, order will not become vulnerable.

Section 14(1)- second proviso-directory in nature- provisions being procedural and is introduced in order to ensure that Magistrate must pass orders within stipulated time-the provision is held to be directory in nature.

Section 14 (1)- second proviso- in the statute the word “may” is employed. No consequence is prescribed if time limit is not followed by the Magistrate. The provision is held to be directory in nature.

Interpretation of statute- the interpretation must depends on the text and context. That interpretation is based, which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted.

Manish Makhija Vs. Central Bank of India and others