The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act is not obligated to seek Magisterial assistance under Section 14 to take physical possession of mortgaged property, provided the statutory notice requirements under Section 13 have been fulfilled and no resistance is encountered. This ruling reinforces the non-adjudicatory enforcement mechanism intended by the Act and curbs procedural delays that undermine creditor rights.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, UCO Bank, a government-owned financial institution, extended a cash credit limit of Rs. 5 crores to M/s Asha Oil Industries, secured by two immovable properties in Bhind and Gwalior. The borrowers defaulted on repayments, leading the Bank to classify the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) effective 31 October 2018. The Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, issuing notices under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) on 13 November 2019 and 30 November 2019 respectively. These notices were published in two newspapers and delivered to the borrowers. Physical possession of the properties was taken by the Bank’s authorised officer on 19 April 2019, supported by a Panchnama indicating no resistance.
Procedural History
- 17 April 2019: Borrowers received notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4)
- 19 April 2019: Bank took physical possession of mortgaged properties
- 1 May 2019: Borrowers filed application under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act challenging possession
- 28 September 2021: Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur, ordered Bank to restore possession and refund auction proceeds
- 14 May 2025: Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Allahabad, dismissed Bank’s appeal
- 28 January 2026: High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior heard writ petition under Article 226
Relief Sought
The Bank sought quashing of the impugned orders of the DRT and DRAT, which had directed restoration of possession and refund of auction money. It also sought directions to uphold its right to enforce security interest without mandatory Magisterial intervention under Section 14.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is a mandatory precondition for a secured creditor to take physical possession of secured assets, or whether possession may lawfully be taken under Section 13(4) without such intervention, provided statutory notices are complied with and no resistance is encountered.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The Bank’s counsel argued that Section 13(4) explicitly empowers secured creditors to take possession of secured assets without court or tribunal intervention. Reliance was placed on Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, which permits possession by delivery and affixing of notice. The Bank cited Standard Chartered Bank v. Noble Kumar and Transcore v. Union of India to establish that possession can be taken directly if no resistance is faced. It was submitted that Section 14 is an enabling provision for assistance, not a mandatory step.
For the Respondent
The borrowers contended that possession taken without Magisterial involvement under Section 14 was illegal and amounted to forcible eviction. They relied on the DRT and DRAT findings that absence of the borrower during possession rendered the act unlawful. They argued that the Bank’s action violated principles of natural justice and that the Tribunal’s order was necessary to prevent abuse of power.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed statutory interpretation of Section 13(4), Section 14, and Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules. It observed that Section 13(4) grants secured creditors the right to take possession as one of several remedies, and that Section 14 is triggered only when assistance is required to overcome resistance. The Court emphasized that the SARFAESI Act was designed to enable swift enforcement without judicial delay.
"Thus, there will be three methods for the secured creditor to take possession of the secured assets: (i) where the secured creditor gives the requisite notice under Rule 8(1) and where he does not meet with any resistance. In that case, the authorised officer will proceed to take steps as stipulated under Rule 8(2) onwards..."
The Court held that the DRT and DRAT erred in conflating the concept of "assistance" under Section 14 with a mandatory precondition for possession. The presence of the borrower is not a statutory requirement. The fact that the properties were unoccupied and no resistance was offered confirmed that the Bank’s action was lawful.
The Court further distinguished symbolic possession from actual possession, relying on Transcore, which held that the authorised officer under Rule 8 acts like a Court Receiver with enhanced powers to protect the security interest. The Court rejected the notion that any physical act of possession without Magisterial presence is inherently illegal, noting that such an interpretation would render the SARFAESI Act ineffective and encourage borrower intransigence.
The Court also noted that the borrowers had not availed their remedy under Section 13(8) to settle dues before auction, thereby forfeiting any equitable claim to restoration.
The Verdict
The petitioner bank won. The Court held that a secured creditor may lawfully take physical possession of secured assets under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act without invoking Section 14, provided statutory notices are duly served and no resistance is encountered. The impugned orders of the DRT and DRAT were set aside.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Possession Without Section 14 Is Lawful
- Practitioners must now argue that Section 14 is optional, not mandatory, when possession is taken without resistance
- Banks and financial institutions may proceed with possession under Rule 8 immediately after notice compliance
- Any tribunal order requiring Section 14 intervention in the absence of resistance is legally unsustainable
Notice Compliance Is the Critical Threshold
- Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) notices must be served in writing and published in two newspapers
- Electronic service under Rule 8(2A) is now valid and should be documented
- Failure to serve notice invalidates possession, regardless of resistance
Resistance Determines the Path Forward
-
If resistance is encountered, Section 14 must be invoked
-
If no resistance, possession under Section 13(4) is sufficient
-
Panchnamas and affidavits documenting absence of resistance are essential evidence
-
Practitioners should advise clients to document all notice deliveries, publication proofs, and possession events with third-party witnesses
-
Applications under Section 17(1) challenging possession without resistance are likely to fail
-
Courts will not entertain claims of "forcible eviction" where no physical confrontation occurred
