The satisfaction of the Magistrate with the contents of the affidavit submitted by the Authorized Officer is crucial in granting assistance to the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the Act.

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

1. In these cases, the petitioners have called in question the validity of the order at Annexure-A, dated 20-8-2014 in Crl. Misc. No. 9894 of 2013 whereby the 6th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, has permitted the first respondent-Bank to take possession of the secured properties which are morefully described in the schedule to the writ petitions under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('Act' for short). The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the entire procedure followed by the Authorised Officer of the first respondent-Bank for taking possession of the secured assets is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the order is vitiated. In this connection, he points out Section 14(1)(b)(ix) of the Act, which states that the application of the secured creditor shall be accompanied by a duly affirmed affidavit of the Authorised Officer stating that the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder had been fully complied with and that the Magistrate after satisfying the contents of the affidavit alone has to pass suitable orders for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets. Learned Counsel further submits that right from the issuance of notice under Section 13(2) till the passing of the order, the procedure has not been followed.

2. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have sought to justify the impugned order. They have taken me through various proceedings initiated by the petitioners under the Act challenging the possession notice under Section 13(4) and also the challenge made by them for sale of the property at various stages. It is their submission that petitioners cannot reagitate those contentions in these writ petitions as all those contentions have been rejected by the DRT, DRAT and as also by this Court in earlier proceedings.

3. I have carefully considered the arguments made by the learned Counsel at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.

4. The petitioners had availed certain financial assistance from the 1st respondent-Bank. Since they defaulted in payment of the secured debts, a notice under Section 13(2) was issued to discharge their liabilities to the secured creditor. The petitioners have raised objections to the said notice. After considering the objections, the secured creditor has come to the conclusion that the objection is not acceptable. This objection was communicated to the petitioners. This was followed by possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act with a view to recover the secured debt by taking possession of the property in question.

5. The petitioners have challenged the measures taken under Section 13(4) by filing an application under Section 17 before the DRT, Bangalore, in S.A. No. 276 of 2012. In the said case, petitioners made a statement that they would repay the defaulted installments by the end of December 2012. The DRT recorded the same and closed the application. However, the petitioners did not pay the amount as undertaken by them before the DRT.

6. The Authorised Officer issued a sale notice dated 25-6-2013 for auctioning of the property in question. This was challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal in S.A. No. 361 of 2013 before the DRT. The said appeal was dismissed on 7-1-2014. Thereafter, the property was auctioned. In the said auction, respondent 2 was the successful bidder. The sale was confirmed and a sale certificate was also issued in his favour. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the sale certificate is registered and katha of the said property has also been transferred in favour of the second respondent.

7. The petitioners have challenged the said sale by filing an appeal in IR No. 133 of 2014 before the DRT. Since there was delay in filing the appeal, the DRT dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed writ peti