Bombay High Court
THE COMSMOS CO-OP. BANK LTD. THRO. ITS AUTHORISED OFFICERversusADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that the magistrate erred; Section 14 may be invoked for movable secured assets and the magistrate’s role is ministerial, so the petition is allowed.
Summary
The Cosmos Co‑op Bank filed a writ petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act seeking the magistrate’s assistance to take possession of movable secured assets (industrial shed and machinery). The magistrate had rejected the application, holding that Rules 4 and 5 provide a complete mechanism for movable assets and that Section 14 is only for immovable assets. The High Court examined the definitions of "secured asset" and "property" in the Act, the relevant Rules, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Standard Chartered Bank v. V. Noble Kumar. It concluded that the magistrate’s role under Section 14 is ministerial, that the Act does not distinguish between movable and immovable assets for invoking Section 14, and that the bank’s affidavit showed it had complied with Rules 4/5 and faced resistance. Consequently, the court held the magistrate’s order was erroneous, quashed it and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be invoked for possession of movable secured assets notwithstanding the existence of Rules 4 and 5.
- Whether the magistrate’s function under Section 14 is purely ministerial and does not require a hearing.
- Whether the magistrate erred in rejecting the bank’s application by misreading the Supreme Court’s judgment in Standard Chartered Bank v. V. Noble Kumar.
- Whether the affidavit evidencing attempts under Rule 4 suffices to justify the magistrate’s assistance under Section 14.
Legislation cited
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — s. 13(4), 14, 2(t), 2(zc), 2(zf)
- Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 — s. 4, 5, 8
Subjects
- SARFAESI Act
- Section 14
- movable assets
- secured creditor
- magistrate
- ministerial act
- possession
- security interest
- High Court
Judgment
21_WP_2356_26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2356 OF 2026
The Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd.,
Through Authorized Officer Vilas J. Shelke … Petitioner
vs.
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigad & ors. … Respondents
Mr. Anshul Anjarlekar, i/b. Raval-Shah & Co. for petitioner.
Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 15 – State authorities.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 27th JULY, 2026
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 15 – State authorities.
2. By an order dated 24.02.2026, this Court had issued notice
only to respondent Nos.1 and 15, considering the fact that the writ
petition arises out of an application filed by the petitioner – bank
(secured creditor) under Section 14 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (the said Act).
3. While exercising power under Section 14 of the said Act, as per
settled law, the Magistrate performs a ministerial act and is not
required to give hearing to the borrower or any third party. Hence,
we have taken this petition for final disposal today.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the
impugned order dated 17.01.2026, the Magistrate has committed a
1/16
21_WP_2356_26.doc
grave error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner – bank.
It is submitted that the impugned order is passed by misreading the
provisions of the said Act and the Security Interest (Enforcement)
Rules, 2002 (the said Rules) framed thereunder. It is further
contended that the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of
Standard Chartered Bank vs. V. Noble Kumar and others , (2013) 9
SCC 620, has also been misread by the Magistrate to hold against the
petitioner. In support of the submissions, the learned for the
petitioner invited attention of this Court to various provisions of the
said Act and the said Rules, to impress upon this Court that the
Magistrate could not have rejected the application, without
examining the documents placed on record by the petitioner – bank.
5. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and
15 also assisted this Court in appreciating the provisions of the said
Act and the said Rules.
6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the reasoning of
the Magistrate, while rejecting the application, under Section 14 of
the said Act, is found in paragraph Nos.7 and 8. The said paragraphs
of the impugned order read as follows:
“7. On a conjoint and harmonious reading of the
provisions of section 13(4), 14 and 2(zc) of The
securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets
and enforcement of security interest Act, 2002,
along with the Security Interest (enforcement)
Rules, 2002, it becomes clear that although the
expression 'secured assets' employed in section 14 is
vide enough to include both movable and
immovable properties, the legislative scheme
consciously draws a procedural distinction between
the two categories. While Rules 4 and 5 of the 2002
Rules provide a complete and self contained
2/16
21_WP_2356_26.doc
mechanism for taking possession and effecting sale
of movable secured assets directly by the secured
creditor without intervention of the magistrate, Rule
8 and 9 governing immovable secured assets
envisaged situations involving resistance,
dispossession and maintenance of public order,
thereby necessitating recourse to executive
assistance under section 14. Section 14 is thus
intended as an enabling provision to facilitate
possession of immovable secured assets where
peaceful possession cannot be taken and the role of
the magistrate thereunder is limited and ministerial
in nature as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Standard Chartered Bank vs. V. Nobel
Kumar permitting routine invocation of section 14
for movable secured assets good render the distinct
procedure prescribed under rule 4 and 5 otiose and
would amount to enlarging the scope of section 14
beyond its contextual and functional purpose.
8. In the present case, the applicant is seeking
assistance for taking possession of movable secured
assets as described in para no. 4 of the main
application i.e. for industrial shed and machinery.
The assistance for recovery of the possession of
movable secured asset cannot be granted, as the
secure creditor has an adequate and efficacious
statutory remedy under Rule 4 and 5 of The
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 without
requiring intervention of this court. Accordingly, the
application under section 14 of SARFAESI Act is
rejected as the secured asset is shown by the
applicant as movable property. In result following
order is passed:
ORDER
Application stands rejected.”
7. In order to appreciate the challenge raised to the said finding
on behalf of the petitioner – bank, we have perused the relevant
provisions of the said Act. Section 2(t) defines property, Section 2(zc)
defines secured asset and Section 2(zf) defines security interest. In
order to properly appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the
3/16
21_WP_2356_26.doc
petitioner, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 14 of the said
Act also. Alongwith the said provisions, reference is also required to
be made to Rules 4, 5 and 8 of the said Rules.
8. The relevant portions of the said Act read as follows:
“2. Definitions.—(1) In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires, -
(t) “property” means—
(i) immovable property;
(ii) movable property;
(iii) any debt or any right to receive payment of
money, whether secured or unsecured;
(iv) receivables, whether existing or future;
(v) intangible assets, being know-how, patent,
copyright, trade mark, licence, franchise or any
other business or commercial right of similar
nature [as may be prescribed by the Central
Government in consultation with Reserve
Bank];
(zc) “secured asset” means the property on which
security interest is created;
(zf) “security interest” means right, title or interest of any
kind, other than those specified in section 31, upon
property created in favour of any secured creditor
and includes—
(i) any mortgage, charge, hypothecation,
assignment or any right, title or interest of any
kind, on tangible asset, retained by the secured
creditor as an owner of the property, given on
hire or financial lease or conditional sale or
under any other contract which secures the
obligation to pay any unpaid portion of the
purchase price of the asset or an obligation
incurred or credit provided to enable the
borrower to acquire the tangible asset; or
(ii) such right, title or interest in any intangible
asset or assignment or licence of such
intangible asset which secures the obligation to
pay any unpaid portion of the purchase price of
the intangible asset or the obligation incurred
4/16
21_WP_2356_26.doc
or any credit provided to enable the borrower
to acquire the intangible asset or licence of
intangible asset;
14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate
to assist secured creditor in taking possession of
secured asset.—(1) Where the possession of any
secured assets is required to be taken by the secured
creditor or if any of the secured assets is required to
be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under
the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may,
for the purpose of taking possession or control of
any such secured assets, request, in writing, the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District
Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such
secured asset or other documents relating thereto
may be situated or found, to take possession
thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as
the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on
such request being made to him—
(a) take possession of such asset and documents
relating thereto; and
(b) forward such asset and documents to the
secured creditor:
Provided that any application by the secured
creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly
affirmed by the authorised officer of the secured
creditor, declaring that—
(i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance
granted and the total claim of the Bank as on
the date of filing the application;
(ii) the borrower has created security interest over
various properties and that the Bank or
Financial Institution is holding a valid and
subsisting security interest over such properties
and the claim of the Bank or Financial
Institution is within the limitation period;
(iii) the borrower has created security interest over
various properties giving the details of
properties referred to in sub-clause (ii) above;
(iv) the borrower has committed default in
repayment of the financial assistance granted
aggregating the specified amount;
(v) consequent upon such default in repayment of
5/16
21_WP_2356_26.doc
the financial assistance the account of the
borrower has been classified as a non-
performing asset;
(vi) affirming that the period of sixty days notice as
required by the provisions of sub-section (2) of
section 13, demanding payment of the
defaulted financial assistance has been served
on the borrower;
(vii) the objection or representation in reply to the
notice received from the borrower has been
considered by the secured creditor and reasons
for non-acceptance of such objection or
representation had been communicated to the
borrower;
(viii)the borrower has not made any repayment of
the financial assistance in spite of the above
notice and the Authorised Officer is, therefore,
entitled to take possession of the secured assets
under the provisions of sub-section (4) of
section 13 read with section 14 of the principal
Act;
(ix) that the provisions of this Act and the rules
made thereunder had been complied with:
Provided further that on receipt of the affidavit from
the Authorised Officer, the District Magistrate or the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be,
shall after satisfying the contents of the affidavit
pass suitable orders for the purpose of taking
possession of the secured assets within a period of
thirty days from the date of application:
Provided further that if no order is passed by the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate
within the said period of thirty days for reasons
beyond his control, he may, after recorded reasons
in writing for the same, pass the order within such
also period but not exceeding in aggregate sixty
days.
Provided also that the requirement of filing affidavit
stated in the first proviso shall not apply to
proceeding pending before any District Magistrate
or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case
may be, on the date of commencement of this Act.
6/16
21_WP_2356_26.doc
(1A) The District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate may authorise any officer subordinate to
him,—
(i) to take possession of such assets and
documents relating thereto; and
(ii) to forward such assets and documents to the
secured creditor.
(2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the
provisions of sub-section (1), the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate or the District Magistrate may take or
cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be
used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be
necessary.
(3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the
District Magistrate any officer authorised by the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate
done in pursuance of this section shall be called in
question in any court or before any authority.”
9. The relevant portions of the said Rules read as follows:
“4. Procedure after issue of notice.—If the amount
mentioned in the demand notice is not paid within
the time specified therein, the authorised officer
shall proceed to realise the amount by adopting any
one or more of the measures specified in sub-section
(4) of section 13 of the 4[Act] for taking possession
of movable property, namely:—
(1) Where the possession of the secured assets to
be taken by the secured creditor are movable
property in possession of the borrower, the
authorised officer shall take possession of such
movable property in the presence of two
witnesses after Panchnama drawn and signed
by the witnesses as nearly as possible in
Appendix I to these rules.
2) After taking possession under sub-rule (1)
above, the authorised officer shall make or
cause to be made an inventory of the property
as nearly as possible in the form given in
Appendix II to these rules and deliver or cause
to be delivered, a copy of such inventory to the
borrower or to any person entitled to receive
7/16
21_WP_2356_26.doc
on behalf of borrower.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
5. Valuation of movable secured assets. -After taking
possession unde sub-rule (1) of rule 4 and in any
case before sale, the authorised officer shal obtain
the estimated value of the movable secured assets
and thereafter, if considered necessary, fix in
consultation with the secured creditor, the reserve
price of the assets to be sold in realisation of the
dues of the secured creditor.
8. Sale of immovable secured assets.-
(1) Where the secured asset is an immovable
property, the authorised officer shall take or
cause to be taken possession, by delivering a
possession notice prepared as nearly as
possible in Appendix IV to these rules, to the
borrower and by affixing the possession notice
on the outer door or at such conspicuous place
of the property.
(2) The possession notice as referred to in sub-rule
(1) shall also be published, as soon as possible
but in any case not later than seven day from
the date of taking possession, in two leading
newspapers], one in vernacular language
having sufficient circulation in that locality, by
the authorised officer.
(2-A) All notices under these rules may also be
served upon the borrower through electronic
mode of service, in addition to the modes
prescribed under sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2)
of rule 8.
(3) In the event of possession of immovable
property is actually taken by the authorised
officer, such property shall be kept in his own
custody or in the custody of any person
authorised or appointed by him, who shall take
as much care of the property in his custody as a
owner of ordinary prudence would, under the
similar circumstances, take of such property.
(4) The authorised officer shall take steps for
preservation and protection of secured assets
and insure them, if necessary, till they are sold
8/16
21_WP_2356_26.doc
or otherwise disposed of.
xxx xxx xxx xxx”
10. A perusal of the above-quoted provisions from the said Act and
the said Rules, show that Section 14 refers to ‘secured asset’, when a
secured creditor seeks assistance of a Magistrate for taking
possession thereof. A perusal of the definition of the secured asset, as
per Section 2(zc) of the said Act quoted hereinabove, shows that
secured asset means a property on which security interest is created.
Section 2(zf) defines security interest, which in turn also specifically
refers to the word ‘property. Section 2(t) of the said Act quoted
hereinabove defines property and crucially includes ‘movable
property’.
11. Rules 4 and 5 of the said Rules prescribe the procedure for
taking possession of the movable property and also, the procedure to
be followed for determining valuation of the movable asset. Rule 8
pertains to rules for immovable secured asset.
12. In this context, when we perused the judgement of the
Supreme Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank vs. V. Noble
Kumar and others (supra), it becomes obvious that the Supreme
Court was concerned with the question as to whether the secured
creditor is required to necessarily make an attempt to take possession
of the secured asset, before invoking the authority of the Magistrate,
under Section 14 of the said Act. We have perused the contents of the
said judgement and we find that there is no reference to Rules 4 and
5 of the said Rules in juxtaposition to Rule 8 thereof. This is crucial in
order to consider the reasoning of the Magistrate in the impugned
order, particularly in paragraph No.7 thereof.
9/16
21_WP_2356_26.doc
13. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgement of the
Supreme Court reads as follows:
“8. The High Court recorded the submissions made
before it as follows:
‘3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
raised two contentions viz.:
(i) The Bank cannot bypass Section 13(4) of
the Sarfaesi Act and invoke the provisions
of Section 14. He would submit, before
invoking Section 14, that notice under
Section 13(4) is necessary, otherwise the
provisions of appeal under Section 17 will
become illusory, particularly when the
proceedings under Section 14 cannot be
questioned by filing appeal before the
Tribunal or before a court.
(ii) In the event the procedures contemplated
under Rule 8 of the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002, are not
followed before Section 14 is invoked, the
order passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate would be contrary to the said
Rules and consequently, the order passed
under Section 14 is liable to be set aside.’
9. It is argued before the High Court as well as before
us by the respondent that a secured creditor before
invoking the authority of the Magistrate under
Section 14 must necessarily make an attempt to
take possession of the secured asset. Only when the
creditor faces resistance to such an attempt the
creditor could resort to the procedure under Section
14 of the Act. According to the first respondent,
Section 17 of the Act provides an “appeal” only
against the measures taken by the creditor under
Section 13(4) of the Act and no such appeal is
available against an action taken by the Judicial
Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act. Therefore,
permitting the creditor to invoke Section 14 without
first resorting to the procedure under Section 13(4)
would deprive the owner of the secured asset an
10/16
21_WP_2356_26.doc
opportunity to prefer an “appeal” to have his
grievances adjudicated. It is further argued that
Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,
2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”)
contemplates a procedure to be followed which
includes a certain mode of publicity of taking
possession to be made, and therefore, even a
Magistrate exercising power under Section 14 of the
Act is also required to follow the procedure
contemplated under Rule 8 though the rule does not
expressly say so. Failure to comply with the
requirement of Rule 8 in the instant case vitiated
the order of the Magistrate.”
14. After considering the various provisions of the said Act, the
Supreme Court further observed as follows:
“20. In every case where the objections raised by the
borrower are rejected by the secured creditor, the
secured creditor is entitled to take possession of the
secured assets. In our opinion, such action—having
regard to the object and scheme of the Act—could
be taken directly by the secured creditor. However,
visualising the possibility of resistance for such
action, Parliament under Section 14 also provided
for seeking the assistance of the judicial power of
the State for obtaining possession of the secured
asset, in those cases where the secured creditor
seeks it.
21. Under the scheme of Section 14, a secured creditor
who desires to seek the assistance of the State's
coercive power for obtaining possession of the
secured asset is required to make a request in
writing to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or
District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction, the
secured asset is located praying that the secured
asset and other documents relating thereto may be
taken possession thereof. The language of Section
14 originally enacted purportedly obliged the
Magistrate receiving a request under Section 14 to
take possession of the secured asset and documents,
if any, related thereto in terms of the request
received by him without any further scrutiny of the
matter.
11/16
21_WP_2356_26.doc
xxx xxx xxx xxx
25. The satisfaction of the Magistrate contemplated
under the second proviso to Section 14(1)
necessarily requires the Magistrate to examine the
factual correctness of the assertions made in such an
affidavit but not the legal niceties of the transaction.
It is only after recording of his satisfaction the
Magistrate can pass appropriate orders regarding
taking of possession of the secured asset.
26. It is in the abovementioned background of the legal
frame of Sections 13 and 14, we are required to
examine the correctness of the conclusions recorded
by the High Court. Having regard to the scheme of
Sections 13 and 14 and the object of the enactment,
we do not see any warrant to record the conclusion
that it is only after making an unsuccessful attempt
to take possession of the secured asset, a secured
creditor can approach the Magistrate. No doubt that
a secured creditor may initially resort to the
procedure under Section 13(4) and on facing
resistance, he may still approach the Magistrate
under Section 14. But, it is not mandatory for the
secured creditor to make attempt to obtain
possession on his own before approaching the
Magistrate under Section 14. The submission that
such a construction would deprive the borrower of a
remedy under Section 17 is rooted in a
misconception of the scope of Section 17.”
15. Thereafter, the Supreme Court referred to Rule 8 of the said
Rules, in the context of immovable properties and eventually,
concluded as follows:
“36. Thus, there will be three methods for the secured
creditor to take possession of the secured assets:
36.1. (i) The first method would be 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 to take possession and thereafter
12/16
21_WP_2356_26.doc
for sale of the secured assets to realise the
amounts that are claimed by the secured creditor.
36.2.(ii) The second situation will arise where the
secured creditor meets with resistance from the
borrower after the notice under Rule 8(1) is
given. In that case he will take recourse to the
mechanism provided under Section 14 of the Act
viz. making application to the Magistrate. The
Magistrate will scrutinise the application as
provided in Section 14, and then if satisfied,
appoint an officer subordinate to him as provided
under Section 14(1-A) to take possession of the
assets and documents. For that purpose the
Magistrate may authorise the officer concerned to
use such force as may be necessary. After the
possession is taken the assets and documents will
be forwarded to the secured creditor.
36.3.(iii) The third situation will be one where the
secured creditor approaches the Magistrate
concerned directly under Section 14 of the Act.
The Magistrate will thereafter scrutinise the
application as provided in Section 14, and then if
satisfied, authorise a subordinate officer to take
possession of the assets and documents and
forward them to the secured creditor as under
clause 36.2.(ii) above.
36.4. In any of the three situations above, after the
possession is handed over to the secured creditor,
the subsequent specified provisions of Rule 8
concerning the preservation, valuation and sale of
the secured assets, and other subsequent rules
from the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,
2002, shall apply.”
16. We have extensively quoted from the aforementioned
judgement of the Supreme Court to understand as to what was the
issue considered by the Supreme Court in the said judgement and the
factual background in which the findings were rendered. A perusal of
the judgement further shows that the questions that arose for
consideration were considered in the backdrop of mortgage of
immovable property. Thus, the Supreme Court nowhere considered
13/16
21_WP_2356_26.doc
the question of physical possession of movable properties being
taken, which form part of the secured asset and there is no reference
to any distinction in the procedure to be adopted, when the secured
creditor proceeds against immovable property on the one hand and
movable property on the other.
17. In this backdrop, a perusal of the above-quoted paragraph
Nos.7 and 8 of the impugned order, shows that the Magistrate
misread the aforesaid judgement of the Supreme Court. There was
no reason for the Magistrate to reach the conclusion about the
Supreme Court having noticed distinct procedures, with regard to the
manner in which the secured creditor would have to take possession
of the movable and immovable properties. There was no reason for
the Magistrate to reach the conclusion that when the secured asset
happens to be a movable property, recourse can be taken only to
Rules 4 and 5 of the said Rules and that in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the application filed by the
secured creditor under Section 14 of the said Act, was required to be
rejected.
18. It appears that the Magistrate failed to consider the contents of
the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner – bank, in support of its
application. The relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as
follows:
“10) I say that, thus the statutory notice dated
30.03.2024 was sent under section 13(2) of the
Securitisation Act 2002 to the Respondent Nos. 1 to
13. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 13 have failed to
discharge in full their liability to the secured
creditors the Bank within 60 days from the date of
the receipt of notice dated 30.03.2024.
11) I say that the applicant thereafter AUTHORISED
OFFICER of the Bank on 02.07.2024 visited the said
14/16
21_WP_2356_26.doc
moveable properties to take possession of the said
secured assets and took Constructive possession of
the property. Possession Notice dt.01.07.2024
U/Rule 4(1) of Security Interest (enforcement)
Rule, 2002 has been served by the Applicant and
also has been published in the daily newspaper i.e.
The Free Press Journal & Business Standard
(English) & Navshakti & Maza Raigad (Marathi) on
06.07.2024.
12) I say that, therefore it is entitled to make the
present application before this Hon'ble Court under
Section 14 of Securitisation Act with request to this
Hon'ble Court to take possession of the above
mentioned property under Section 14(1)(b) of the
said act after taking possession thereof. The
Applicant is also entitled to pray before this Hon’ble
Court to to direct the Respondents to comply with
the orders of this Hon'ble Court under the
provisions of Section 14(2) of the said act.
13) I say that, despite the receipt or deemed to have
heen received of the aforesaid Demand Notice, the
Respondent/s have neither discharged their liability
within stipulated period of 60 days nor raised any
kind of objection/representation u/sec. 13 (3-A) of
SARFAESI Act.
14) I say that, the Respondents has not made any
repayment of the said financial assistance in spite of
the aforesaid Demand Notice and the Authorised
Officer is, therefore, entitled to take possession of
the aforesaid secured asset/s under the provisions of
sub-section (4) of section 13 read with section 14 of
the principal Act.”
19. We find that while passing the impugned order, the Magistrate
committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner
– bank under Section 14 of the said Act. The above-quoted portion of
the affidavit of the petitioner – bank shows that it had taken
necessary steps under Rule 4 of the said Rules and yet, there was
resistance with regard to physical possession. It is brought to our
notice that four attempts were made for auction sale of the movable
assets that formed part of the security interest of the petitioner –
15/16
21_WP_2356_26.doc
bank. The attempts were made as per notices dated 10.01.2025,
11.03.2025, 06.05.2025 and 01.01.2026. All the four attempts failed
in the light of resistance of the borrowers and in the absence of
physical possession of the movable assets being taken by the
petitioner – bank.
20. In such circumstances the Magistrate ought to have
entertained the application filed by the petitioner – bank under
Section 14 of the said Act and an appropriate order should have been
passed, after performing the ministerial act of verifying the
documents and affidavit placed on record by the petitioner – bank.
21. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 17.01.2026 passed by respondent No.1 –
Magistrate is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to
the Magistrate for consideration afresh of the application filed by the
petitioner – bank under Section 14 of the said Act. The Magistrate
shall consider the documents and affidavit placed on record by the
petitioner – bank to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.
The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks
from today.
22. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
PRIYA
Digitally signed
by PRIYA
KAMBLI
Priya Kambli
KAMBLI Date: 2026.07.28
18:08:23 +0530
16/16
Checking your session…