J U D G M E N T

The petitioners have approached this court being aggrieved by the fact that physical possession of the residential house of the 1st petitioner which was a secured asset in so far as the 1st respondent bank is concerned has been taken even before proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act) have been finalized. It is submitted that going by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others v. State of Maharashtra and others; (2011) 2 SCC 782 the taking of physical possession can only be done after action under Section 13 (4) is initiated. It is submitted that though a slightly different view has been taken in Standard Chartered Bank and others v. Noble Kumar and others; (2013) 9 SCC 620, this court in Roshan Narayanan C.S. v. Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India and another; 2017 (4) KLT 1172 has found that when there are mutually irreconcilable decisions of the Supreme Court and the latter judgment does not refer to the earlier judgment, then the earlier judgment will have to be followed. Specific