Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The first petitioner as a secured creditor seeks a direction upon the concerned District Magistrate to consider and dispose of an application made under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2002).
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the first petitioner had made an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 before the concerned District Magistrate on September 9, 2013. Such application has not been considered and decided till date. He seeks expeditious disposal of such application.
(3.) Referring to the facts of the present case, he submits that, although the petitioners had sold the immovable property concerned in respect of which the application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 was filed, the first petitioner still entitled to maintain the writ petition for the relief as prayed for. He refers to Sections 13(6), 13(10) and 14 of the Act of 2002. He refers to Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in support of the contention. He relies upon (Kathikkal Tea Plantations v. State Bank of India, 2010 AIR(Mad) 24), (Dilip Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2013 1 ILR(All) 113) and (Punjab National Bank v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2017 2 BankCas 500) in support of the contention that, time is not a constraint in making an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. He submits that, Section 14 uses two words with regard to the immovable property. A secured creditor is entitled to sale or transfer an immovable property. The words 'sale' and 'transfer' being used in the same section, it must be granted that, the legislature had used such two words for different purposes. Sale and transfer are not synonymous. He refers to the meaning of transfer in Black's Law Dictionary. He submits that, transfer can both be a noun and a verb. In Section 14 it is used as a verb. It is used for the purpose of allowing the secured creditor to pass or hand over possession of the property. Therefore, even if the secured creditor had sold the property, for the purpose of transferring possession of such property, a secured creditor is entitled to invoke Section 14 of the Act of 2002. A secured creditor can sale an immovable property without taking any physical possession thereof. In support of such contention, he relies upon (Transcore v. Union of India & Anr., 2008 1 SCC 125). He submits that, Transcore was not considered in (Standard Chartered Bank v. V. Noble Kumar & Ors., 2013 9 SCC 620). According to him, V. Noble Kumar & Ors. does not hold that, a secured creditor cannot sale an immovable property without taking any physical possession thereof. Such issue was not raised in V. Noble Kumar & Ors. . Consequently, the Division Bench's judgment rendered in (Central Bank of India v. Debasish Nandy & Ors., F.M.A.T. 1835 of 2014) dated February 5, 2015 requiring the secured creditor to take actual physical possession of the property before sale is not in consonance of the ratio of Transcore . He submits that, the Division Bench in (Mohan General Trading Company & Anr. v. United Bank of India & Ors.,2014 SCCOnline(Cal) 19038) has approved an order passed by this Court directing assistance under Section 14 under similar circumstances.;