short) was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Surat and orders were passed on 06.04.2023 directing to take physical possession of the secured asset to be taken. The possession was initially scheduled to be taken on 25.05.2023 which failed for some reason. After the Appellant had filed the S.A., possession was attempted to be taken under Sec. 14. Therefore, S.A. was amended to incorporate the challenge against the order under Sec. 14 because the nine-pointer affidavit does not accompany the application under Sec. 14. It is further contended for the Appellant that the notice under Sec. 13(2) does not give a break-up of the principal amount, interest and costs as required under Sec. 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act. It is also contended that the name of the authorised officer is not specified to indicate that he is authorised to issue the demand notice. That apart, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the security created is also faulty for the reason that the CERSAI registration was obtained only on 30.12.2022 and the application for registration indicates that the security was created on 27.04.2021 though, in the reply filed by the Respondent bank, the date of creation of the mortgage is shown as 27.04.2023. It is stated that no Sarfaesi measures could have been initiated without a proper registration under the CERSAI and therefore, the entire Sarfaesi measures should be discarded and quashed. The Appellant contends that he has a very strong prima facie case and is presently under financial strain and unable to pay 50% of the debt due as contemplated under Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act and therefore, seek the indulgence of this Tribunal to reduce the amount of deposit to the minimum of 25% exercising the jurisdiction under the third proviso to Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act.
