M.S.SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.S. Kantak, learned Senior Advocate along with Advocate Abhijeet Kamat for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.313/2018, Mr. Shivan Desai, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. Rajesh Shivolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4.

2. Heard Mr. Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate along with Advocate Gaurish Agni for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.585/2017, Mr. R.G.Ramani, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Ms. Purna Bhandari, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos.7 to 9.

3. In both these petitions, the challenge is basically to the orders made by the Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002).

4. It is the case of both the petitioners that they are neither the secured creditors qua respondent no.1-Bank nor is the property, which is the subject matter of respective petitions mortgaged or otherwise offered as a security to respondent no.1-Bank for repayment of any alleged loan amounts by Smt. Suraj Mascarenhas or other members of the Mascarenhas family. Mr. Kantak and Mr. Sardessai, learned Senior Advocates for the petitioners, contend that respondent no.1-Bank can invoke the provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, only in a situation, where any security interest created in favour of any secured creditors may be enforced. They point out that in the present case, there is no security interest whatsoever created in the properties, which respondent no.1-Bank seeks to attach and take over by invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. They, therefore, submit that the very initiation of the proceedings either respondent no.1-Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is an exercise ex facie without jurisdiction and the Magistrate, therefore, was duty bound to decline the invitation to act under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, insofar as the properties which are the subject matter of the present petitioners are concerned. They point out that since the action of respondent no.1-Bank is ex facie without jurisdiction, even the bar of an alternate remedy can never apply and the reliefs prayed for in these petitions may be made absolute.

5. In the alternate, Mr. Kantak and Mr. Sardessai, point out that even under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Magistrate is required to satisfy himself as to the fulfillment of the predicates of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In particular, they point out that the Magistrate must satisfy himself as to the contents of the affidavit to be made on behalf of respondent no.1-Bank. They submit that such satisfaction extends to at least verifying whether the property which is to be possessed, must be a property, which is mortgaged or otherwise offered as a security for repayment of the loan to respondent no.1-Bank. They point out that in the present case, detailed application was filed before the Magistrate along with documents to establish that the properties in question were never mortgaged to respondent no.1-Bank. The Magistrate, without recording any satisfaction on this aspect has proceeded to make the impugned order, which are ex facie without jurisdiction and warranting interference. The learned Senior Advocates repeat and reiterate that in the present case, the properties, which are the subject matter of these petitions can never be styled as 'secured assets' and there is absolutely no dispute that the petitioners are not even creditors of respondent no.1- Bank, much less secured creditors.

6. Mr. Kantak and Mr. Sardessai, learned Senior Advocates rely on Shri Shivabassappa I. Kankanwadi and another Vs. Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank of Goa Ltd. and others,2016 SCCOnLine(Bom) 2574, to contend that where the Magistrate proposes to take action under Section 14 in respect of property, which was not even mortgaged to the Bank, such action, would be without jurisdiction and such ac