D.MURUGESAN, J. 1. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property situate at No.114-117, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur Village, Chennai, admeasuring to an extent of 26154 sq. ft. and a building with ground and first floor each measuring an extent of 1274 sq.ft. and 783 sq.ft. comprised in re-survey No.493/2, lying within the Sub Registration District of Saidapet. He was formally one of the Directors of Vemasi Chemicals Private Limited at Ambattur. The said company availed a loan from the Standard Chartered Bank, Chennai, for a sum of Rs.40 lakhs on 30.12.2003. The said loan amount carried interest at the rate of 11.5% p.a. repayable in 84 equated monthly instalments ending on December, 2010. The petitioner had given his property documents as collateral security for the said loan. Thereafter, once again, the company availed loan from the very same bank for a further sum of Rs.50 lakhs on 29. 2004 repayable in 84 equal monthly instalments ending on September, 2011. 2. The petitioner was relieved from the company on 17. 2006 and thereafter, the other Directors were looking after the affairs of the company. According to the petitioner, the other Directors promised him that they will regularly pay the instalments to the bank. However, the bank issued a notice dated 111. 2007 under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, in short) for repayment of an amount of Rs.62,79,835.05. The petitioner contacted the other Directors, who assured that the amount due to the bank would be settled. However, the petitioner came to know that the respondent-bank had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, by filing an application in Crl.M.P.No.1518 of 2009 under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had issued warrant dated 112. 2009 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the property. The said Advocate Commissioner issued a notice to the petitioner on 11. 2010 to take possession of the property. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by this petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two contentions, viz., (i)The bank cannot bypass section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and invoke the provisions of section 14. He would submit, before invoking section 14, that notice under section 13(4) is necessary, otherwise the provisions of appeal under section 17 will become illusory, particularly when the proceedings under section 14 cannot be questioned by filing appeal before the Tribunal or before a Court. (ii)In the event the procedures contemplated under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, are not followed before section 14 is invoked, the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate would be contrary to the said Rules and consequently, the order passed under section 14 is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank would, on the other hand, submit that the bank/financial institution is entitled to take symbolic possession under section 13(4) of the Act and before such symbolic possession is taken, no notice is contemplated. In the event, the bank/financial institution experienced any difficulty in taking possession, it may approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned under section 14. The learned counsel would submit that the rights of the bank/financial institution to invoke section 14 of the Act is independent of the provisions of section 13 (4) in the event the bank decides to take physical possession of secured immovable property. The powers of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/ District Magistrate under section 14 is only ministerial and no adjudication is required. In view of the same, the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/District Magistrate is final and the same cannot be called in question in any court or before any authority. 5. To decide the co