: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8412 OF 2009 1. M/s. Prabhat General Agencies & 4 ors. ... Petitioners Vs 1. The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. & 4 ors. ... Respondents Mr. Vineet Naik with Ms. Sheetal Shah i/b M/s.Mehta & Girdharlal for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Satpute i/b M/s. Satpute & Co. for the respondent No.1. Mr. Ravi Kadam, senior counsel, with Mr. Janhvi Durve and Rajesh Talekar for the respondent No.3. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, senior counsel with Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir i/b M/s. S.N. Gupta & Co. for the respondents No.2, 4 and 5. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for th petitioners sought to contend that there is violation of Rules 8 and 9 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of : 2 : Security Interest Act, 2002. We have thoroughly gone through the impugned order passed and more specifically the findings recorded by the Tribunal as regards the price at which the property has been sold which is reflected in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the impugned order. On the basis of the said observations and the facts which have been recorded we are satisfied that the property has been sold to a third party viz. respondents No. 2 to 5 by following due procedure and for a price which is equal to the reserve price. It is to be noted that part of the property has been sold out of the total evaluated property. Therefore, the calculations in respect of the part of the property have been carried out by the Tribunals below and they have recorded that it is equal to the reserve price. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, no interference is called for in our Writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is, accordingly, rejected. 2. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners makes a request that the ad-interim order which has been passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 15th September, 2009, may be further continued for a period of six weeks. The Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act came into force in 2002. Thereafter the proceedings have been continuously going on between the parties. The third-party i.e. the respondent-purchasers have paid the amount : 3 : in 2005 and the property is in possession of the said respondent-purchasers. The two courts below have protected the petitioners. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we find it appropriate that two weeks’ time is sufficient for the petitioners in order to approach the Apex Court for appropriate reliefs. Therefore, the said ad-interim order granted is directed to be continued for a period of two weeks. Sd/- Sd/- (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)