As per case facts, UCO Bank, a Government undertaking, provided a cash credit limit to M/s Asha Oil Industries and Smt. Poonam Shivhare, who mortgaged immovable properties as security. Upon ... default, the bank classified the account as a Non-Performing Asset and initiated SARFAESI proceedings, taking physical possession. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and subsequently the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) ruled against the bank, directing it to restore physical possession to the borrowers and return money to the auction purchaser, citing that possession was taken without resorting to Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The bank then filed a Writ Petition challenging these orders. The question arose whether a secured creditor is legally obligated to invariably seek assistance from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession of secured assets, even in the absence of resistance, or if it can proceed with direct possession under Section 13(4) and Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Finally, the High Court held that the lower tribunals’ finding was erroneous. The SARFAESI Act and Rules permit the authorized officer to take physical possession directly, especially when no resistance is encountered, as was the case here with closed and under-construction properties. Section 14 is an optional recourse for *assistance* when resistance is met, not a mandatory prerequisite for all possession takings. The court emphasized that the Act's objective is to enable swift recovery by secured creditors, and mandating Section 14 in all cases would defeat this purpose and unduly benefit defaulting borrowers. Consequently, the High Court set aside the DRT and DRAT orders, allowing the bank to proceed as per law.