V.M. Kanade, J.

1. Petitioners in all these cases are principal borrowers and Respondents – Banks are the secured Creditors. Petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/District Magistrate under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (For short “SARFAESI Act”) allowing the Banks to take physical possession of the secured assets and, if necessary, with the police help. In a few cases, Petitioners have also challenged validity of certain provisions under the SARFAESI Act.

2. This is yet another attempt made by the borrowers to argue the same submissions which were argued before the Apex Court in several cases including the cases decided by the Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India (AIR 2004 SC 2371), Transcore vs. Union of India (AIR 2007 SC 712) and Standard Chartered Bank vs. V. Noble Kumar & Others (2013(2) D.R.T.C. 609 (S.C.)and all the submissions regarding violation of principles of natural justice, validity of the provisions of SARFAESI Act were repelled by the Apex Court. Now, again, after the proviso to Section 14 has been added by the Amendment Act of 2013, Petitioners/borrowers have once again lined up and arguing the same points and seeking an order and direction from this Court directing the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to give personal hearing to the borrowers on account of amendment to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and only thereafter decide the application filed by the Bank under Section 14. (Emphasis supplied)

3. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Banks that after the legislature realized that civil justice delivery system was not adequate to decide the cases of commercial transactions, particularly for the recovery of secured debts, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was passed and after six years it realized that secured debts could not be recovered. Two Committees made in-depth analysis and submitted their reports popularly known as Narasimhan Report and Andhyarujina Report which have culminated into SARFAESI Act being passed. We are informed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Banks that even after SARFAESI Act is passed, the Banks rarely succeed in getting the possession of the secured assets and even if they are successful, the properties are not sold and the debts are not recovered. (Emphasis supplied)

4. Petitioners obtained financial assistance from the Banks on furnishing security in the form of a mortgage. Petitioners in all these Petitions contended that the principal borrower has a right to be heard by the Magistrate when he exercises power vested in him under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that after the amendment of Section 14 and inclusion of the proviso to Section 14 sub-clauses (i) to (ix), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/District Magistrate has to satisfy himself about the correctness or otherwise of the information which is provided by the Bank and, therefore, the exercise of the said power is judicial/quasi judicial and, therefore, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate is duty bound to give hearing to the principal borrower before passing any order. Reliance also has been placed on several judgments of the Apex Court and this Court in support of the said submission.

5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Banks has submitted that no right has accrued in favour of the principal borrower after amendment of Section 14 in 2013 and the position which prevailed prior to the amendment has not changed and, therefore, right of hearing cannot be read into Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. He has taken us through all the judgments of the Apex Court right from Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India (AIR 2004 SC 23