Madras High Court orders Chengalpattu CJM to explain reasons for fixing exorbitant fees for advocate commissioners

The Madras High Court has called for an explanation from Chengalpattu Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) following a complaint that the judicial officer was fixing exorbitant amount of money towards Advocate Commissioners’ fees in applications filed by banks to take possession of properties under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002.

First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the CJM to explain the basis on which the judicial officer had fixed an uniform Advocate Commissioner fee of ₹80,000 each in as many as seven applications, preferred by AU Small Finance Bank Limited, including the ones filed for recovery of loan amounts which were as low as ₹2.47 lakh and ₹3.43 lakh.

“Along with the explanation, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, is directed to furnish the names of the Advocate Commissioners so appointed by him. The High Court’s Registrar General is directed to call for the explanation from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu within 10 days,” the judges said and directed the High Court Registry to list the matter next on September 8, 2026.

The orders were passed after AU Small Finance Bank complained to the High Court that the Advocate Commissioners’ fees fixed by the CJM was highly arbitrary and unreasonable. The court was also told that the CJM had been passing such orders invariably in all applications filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act despite a set of directions issued by the High Court with respect to disposal of such applications.

When Punjab National Bank had complained to the High Court that more than 200 applications, filed for taking possession of properties under the SARFAESI Act, were pending with the Chengalpattu CJM beyond the statutory time limit of 30 days, the first Division Bench had on June 5 issued an elaborate set of directions to be followed by all judicial officers in the State while dealing with such applications.

Then, the judicial officers were reminded of the Supreme Court’s ruling that the role of the CJMs would only be ministerial and not adjudicatory while dealing with Section 14 applications and that the disposal of such applications could not be delayed beyond the statutory time limits since time was the essence and the SARFAESI Act itself had been enacted only to help financial institutions to recover dues quickly.