Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

1. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective sides in these matters in extenso. With their consent, we have taken up both these matters for adjudication together, considering the common issue of law, involved.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1273 OF 2017

2. In the first Petition, the Petitioner-Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd has impugned the order dated 10.04.2017 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, (in short CMM) rejecting the application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002. For the sake of clarity, prayer clause 26(a) put forth by the Petitioner is reproduced as under:

“26(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the record and proceeding of the Application No. 278/SA/2013 from the office of the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and on perusal of the same, be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ of a like nature and set aside and quash the Order dated 10th April 2017 being Exhibit 'A' passed by the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai and also be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ of like nature directing the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to take physical possession of the Mortgaged Properties and hand over the same to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the order or any other such period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;”

WRIT PETITION NO. 2233 OF 2017

3. In the second Petition, the Petitioner-HDFC Bank Ltd. has sought to challenge the order dated 23.05.2017 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by which the application filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 has been rejected. For the sake of clarity, prayer clauses 29(a) and 29(b) put forth by the Petitioner are reproduced as under:

“29(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble Court calling for the records arising out the Securitization Application bearing no. 261/SA/2015 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Esplanade leading to the Impugned Order dated 23rd May 2017 and after examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the same;

29(b) pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition, this Hon'ble Court by temporary order and injunction be pleased to stay the effect, operation and purport of the Impugned Order dated 23rd May 2017 and restrain the Respondents (whether by themselves or through their agents, servants, representatives or subordinates) from in any manner taking any steps or any dates in furtherance of the Impugned Order dated 23rd May 2017 or in any manner dealing with, encumbering or creating third party rights in respect of the Subject Property i.e. Flat No. 701, 7th floor, Santacruz Saryu premises Co-operative Society Ltd. situate at Plot No.64-B, F.P. No.107, CST No.567, Linking Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 054.”

4. There is no dispute that, in both these matters in between the banks, who are secured creditors and the Respondents, the issue of exercise of power by the District Magistrate (DM) or by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), under Section 14 (1) (b) (i) to (ix) of the SARFAESI Act has been raised by the parties.

5. Considering the extensive submissions canvassed by the learned Advocates for the respective sides and keeping in view the issues raised in both these petitions, we are not required to advert to the entire submissions put forth, which we have summarised hereunder. Suffice it to say that, the Petitioner-Banks in both these cases have strenuously canvassed a law point that the learned CMM or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, did not have the scope and power to consider every aspect of the affidavit filed by the