Supreme Court – Daily Orders
M/S. India Infoline Housing Finance … vs Nageswara Rao Perikala on 16 March, 2026
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 26160 OF 2025)
M/S INDIA INFOLINE HOME
FINANCE LIMITED APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NAGESWARA RAO PERIKALA AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the order
dated 27.06.2025, whereby the writ petition
preferred by the appellant was disposed of.
3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the
present appeal are that, in a proceeding
initiated by the Appellant under Section 14 of
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (‘the Act’), the Chief
Signature Not VerifiedJudicial Magistrate (CJM), by an order dated
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2026.03.17
20.01.2025, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to
16:35:21 IST
Reason:
execute the warrant of possession in respect of
the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner was
1
directed to submit an interim report in case
police assistance was required. The entire
exercise was directed to be completed within a
period of thirty days.
4. The Advocate Commissioner visited the mortgaged
property on 04.02.2025 and served the notice of
possession upon the borrower, who sought time to
repay the loan. The Advocate Commissioner again
visited the mortgaged property on 15.02.2025 and
attempted to secure possession. However, the
respondents obstructed the process and prevented
the execution of possession by resorting to
violent means. On 20.02.2025, the Advocate
Commissioner submitted an interim report before
the CJM apprising the court of the difficulties
faced in executing the warrant. Thereafter, the
Advocate Commissioner again attempted to take
possession of the mortgaged property on
25.02.2025 and 26.02.2025. However, the
respondents once again obstructed the process.
5. On 28.02.2025, the Advocate Commissioner filed a
memo before the CJM seeking extension of time for
execution of the warrant of possession. By order
dated 03.03.2025, the CJM directed the Advocate
2
Commissioner to submit a report regarding whether
the warrant had been executed and further
directed that, if the warrant had not been
executed, the same be returned within weekdays.
The CJM thereafter directed that the record of
the case be consigned to the record room and
accordingly closed the petition.
6. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order by
filing a writ petition. The High Court, by order
dated 27.06.2025, disposed of the writ petition
granting liberty to the appellant to file a fresh
petition under Section 14 of the Act before the
CJM. It was further directed that, in the event
such an application is filed, the same shall be
entertained and appropriate orders shall be
passed by the CJM.
7. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the
present appeal.
8. Learned senior counsel for the appellant,
submitted that the time limits prescribed under
Section 14 of the Act are directory and not
mandatory. It is further submitted that the CJM
erred in rejecting the memo filed by the Advocate
Commissioner seeking extension of time for
execution of the warrant. It is contended that
3
the order of the High Court defeats the object of
the Act, and that the CJM, in proceedings under
Section 14 of the Act, is under a statutory
obligation to ensure execution of the warrant of
possession in respect of the secured asset. In
support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance
has been placed on the decision of this Court1.
9. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on
behalf of the respondents.
10. We have considered the submissions made by
learned senior counsel for the appellant and have
perused the record. Section 14 of the Act enables
secured creditors to approach the CJM or the
District Magistrate for obtaining possession of a
secured asset. The second proviso to Section
14(1) requires the CJM to pass suitable orders
for the purpose of taking possession of the
secured asset within a period of thirty days from
the date of the application. Section 14(2) of the
Act empowers the CJM or the District Magistrate
to take steps, or cause such steps to be taken,
and to use or cause to be used such force as may,
in his opinion, be necessary. The CJM is under a
statutory obligation to ensure that the warrant
1 C. BRIGHT v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS, (2021) 2 SCC 392
4
of possession is executed, and the secured
creditor is not required to run from pillar to
post. The inability to take possession within the
prescribed time-limit does not render the
District Magistrate functus officio. The secured
creditor has no control over the District
Magistrate, who exercises jurisdiction under
Section 14 of the Act for public good in order to
facilitate recovery of public dues. Therefore,
Section 14 of the Act cannot be interpreted
literally without considering the object and
purpose of the Act2.
11. In the present case, the CJM, without assigning
any reason and without even considering the memo
filed by the Advocate Commissioner seeking
extension of time to execute the warrant of
possession, mechanically directed the
Commissioner to submit a report regarding the
status of execution of the warrant of possession
and further directed that, in the event the
warrant had not been executed, the same be
returned. The petition was consequently closed.
The impugned order suffers from the vice of non-
2 C. BRIGHT (Supra)
5
application of mind and amounts to abdication of
the statutory duty cast upon the CJM under
Section 14 of the Act. The High Court failed to
appreciate the aforesaid aspect and instead
granted liberty to the appellant to file a fresh
petition under Section 14 of the Act.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders
dated 03.03.2025 and 27.06.2025 passed by the CJM
and the High Court respectively are quashed and
set aside. The proceedings under Section 14 of
the Act in Crl. M.P. No.62 of 2025 are restored.
The CJM is directed to provide Police protection
to the Advocate Commissioner and to ensure that
the warrant of possession is executed
expeditiously, preferably within a period of one
month.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
…………………………………………………………………….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
………………………………………………………………….J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 16, 2026.
6
ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.6 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 26160/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-06-2025
in WP No. 15667/2025 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amravati]
M/S. INDIA INFOLINE HOME FINANCE LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
NAGESWARA RAO PERIKALA & ORS. Respondent(s)
[RETAIN ITS POSITION.]
IA No. 237852/2025 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 221548/2025 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 16-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nishant Awana, AOR
Ms. Rini Badoni, Adv.
Ms. Vanshita Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Nitya Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Awana, Adv.
Mr. Mayank Chaudhary, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The Civil Appeal is allowed in terms of the Signed Order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KAPIL TANDON) (NIDHI WASON) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSTT. REGISTRAR(NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)
7
[ad_1]
Source link
