SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The present petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm/borrower and petitioner no. 2 is a partner of the said firm. The opposite party no. 1 is a financer/creditor. The petitioner no. 1-firm took a loan from the opposite party no. 1. Subsequently upon the petitioner no. 1 having failed to repay such loan, the opposite party no. 1 issued a demand notice dated August 23, 2017 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the SARFAESI Act"). The said notice was followed up by a notice of possession under Section 13(4) on November 4, 2017.

2. Being thus aggrieved by the said notices, the borrower preferred before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III at Kolkata an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, giving rise to S.A. No. 467 of 2017.

3. During pendency of the aforesaid proceeding under Section 17, the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas passed an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on June 18, 2018, thereby authorizing one Arshad Jamal Hasmi, WBCS (EXE) to take possession of the assets and documents of the borrower and to forward the same to the secured creditor with police assistance. The Bhawanipur police station was requested to provide police assistance to the "authorised officer" for taking possession of the secured assets as noted therein.

4. The borrower took out an application, bearing I.A. No. 576 of 2018, in S.A. No. 467 of 2017, praying for a restraint order on the respondents to proceed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, as well as for setting aside the order of the District Magistrate dated June 18, 2018 and for ancillary reliefs.

5. The tribunal, vide Order No. 5 dated June 28, 2018, allowed I.A. No. 576 of 2018, thereby setting aside the order of the District Magistrate. The secured creditor/present opposite party no. 1 preferred against the said order an appeal, bearing No. 138 of 2018. The appellate tribunal, by its order dated July 4, 2018 allowed the said appeal, thereby reversing the order of the tribunal dated June 28, 2018.

6. The primary premise of the order of the first tribunal was that the District Magistrate had violated the provisions of Section 14(1A) of the SARFAESI Act by providing police assistance to the secured creditor for taking possession of the secured assets directly, instead of delegating such task to an officer subordinate to him, as envisaged in the said provision.

7. The appellate tribunal reversed such finding on the ground that the person who was authorised to take possession of the assets, namely one Arshad Jamal Hasmi, was directed not only to take possession of the assets but thereafter to forward those to the secured creditor with police assistance. As such, the Magistrate had not, apparently, permitted the secured creditor itself to take such possession. Accordingly, the appellate tribunal set aside the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and remanded the matter to the latter to look into the order of the District Magistrate afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the application, being I.A. 576 of 2018, was maintainable under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act itself and that sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the said Act was not a bar to a challenge under Section 17.

9. In support of such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners cites a judgment reported at [Standard Chartered Bank vs. V. Noble Kumar and others, (2013) 9 SCC 620], placing particular reliance on paragraph nos. 26 and 27 of the said judgment to strengthen his arguments. It is submitted that although in the said decision it was also held that the remedy of Section 17 was available to the borrower only after losing possession of the property, such portion of the judgment was subsequently read down in other judgments of the Supreme Court.

10. In this context, learned counsel for the peti