Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna

JUDGMENT

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1961/2017, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court while interpreting Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "SARFAESI Act") has held that (i) the District Magistrate, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is not a persona designata for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act; (ii) the expression "District Magistrate" and the "Chief Metropolitan Magistrate" as appearing in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act shall deem to mean and include Additional District Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the purposes of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the borrower has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

2.1 That Respondent No. 1 herein - Financial Institution - Capital First Limited is the secured creditor (hereinafter referred to as the "secured creditor") within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zd) of the SARFAESI Act. That the secured creditor instituted proceedings under the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the amount due and payable by the Appellant herein - borrower. The said proceedings initiated Under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor proceeded to take possession of the secured asset. However, the borrowers refused to handover the physical possession of the secured asset. The ........