- (1.) The writ petition came to be filed by the respondent/borrower challenging the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. According to the writ petitioner, the order of the District Magistrate is bad for the following reasons; 1) District Magistrate did not record his satisfaction as postulated under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act; 2) The secured assets were not situated within the district of South, 24-Paraganas; 3) Authorising Police Commissioner to assist the security creditor in taking possession of the assets secured.
(2.) Learned Judge opined that the order of the District Magistrate is cryptic and further was of the opinion that the District Magistrate, South 24-Paraganas did not have authority to pass such an order pertaining to a property which is situated within the District of North 24-Paraganas.
(3.) Aggrieved by the same, the appellant Bank is before us. The appellant bank placed on record the application filed under Section 14 of the Act along with the affidavit wherein they have sought that pleading contained in the application be treated as part and parcel of the affidavit sworn by the authorized officer of the Bank. On perusal of the contents of the additional document now placed on record, one has to see whether there is compliance of declaration as required to be filed by the authorized officer of the secured creditor as envisaged under first proviso to Section 14 of the Act, i.e., condition Nos. (i) to (ix).;