Gupta, C.J. -- 1. The challenge in the present writ appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 11.4.2018 in Writ Petition No. 8077/2017 (Shri Carnet Elias Fernandes Vemalayam and another v. District Magistrate and others) whereby an order passed by the District Magistrate, Bhopal on 28.4.2017 under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) has been set aside.

2. The sole reason for setting aside the order of the District Magistrate is that the Bombay High Court in Arbitration Petition No.1118/2015 (Aditya Birla Finance Limited v. Mr. Carnet Elias Fernandes and another) has passed an order on 4.9.2015 to hand over the physical possession of the property to the Receiver in proceedings initiated by the appellant under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act”). It was found that since symbolic possession of the property is with the Receiver, therefore, an order passed by the District Magistrate cannot override the order dated 4.9.2015 passed by the Bombay High Court. The relevant extract from the order dated 11.4.2018