SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.

1. Assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 27.04.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai in SA SR No. 2806 of 2015, whereunder the application of the writ petitioner under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act”) was rejected on the ground that the application is not maintainable for the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, this writ petition has been filed.

2. The brief facts relevant for adjudication in this case are as under:

The petitioner became a defaulter on account of non payment of loan amount. Accordingly, a demand notice under provisions of Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for a sum of Rs.347,40,52,551.29 was served on him. Thereafter, possession notices dated 11.3.2013, 13.3.2013 and 14.3.2013 were issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act in respect of the different properties. It is stated that the sale notice was also issued. Consequently, the respondent Bank preferred an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.815 of 2015, seeking physical possession of the properties in dispute. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, by order dated 20.4.2015, ordered recovery of possession with the assistance of the Station House Officer, J3 Guindy Police Station, Chennai.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the aforestated application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, assailing the validity of the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Presiding Officer, after considering the case and also referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 1, held that no appeal is maintainable against the order of possession passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would submit that the Supreme Court in the matter of Standard Chartered Bank vs. V. Noble Kumar and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 620, had categorically held that no appeal against the order of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate, is maintainable before possession of the secured assets is taken over by the secured creditor. Thus, without handing over the possession, the petitioner borrower ought not to have approached the Tribunal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no pre-condition to comply with the order of possession passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2011) 2 SCC 782 and also the subsequent decision in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra), an appeal is maintainable against the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act.

6. The question that arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether an appeal, assailing the legality and validity of the order of possession passed by the CMM or District Magistrate, as the case may be, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, is maintainable before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

7. The identical issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 110, wherein it was held that the remedy of filing of an application under Section 17(1) against the action taken under Section 14 is available. It is profitable to refer to relevant para as under:

“42. There