IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.17601 of 2009 Between: M/s.VIP Lodge, represented by its proprietor and three others. … Petitioners And Indian Overseas Bank, represented by its Manager and another. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.17601 of 2009 ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) In this writ petition, petitioners challenges the public notice dated 01.09.2009 published by the respondents-bank proposing to sell the secured immovable property consisting of 305.77 square yards of site along with R.C.C. Building, old ward No.10, Block No.1, Door No.22-1-25, Zinna Tower Centre, Lalapet, Guntur, for due recovery of the amount borrowed by them as per the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, “the Act”). On taking measures to sell the property under Section 13(4) of the Act by the respondents-bank, the petitioners filed S.A.No.129 of 2005 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, along with I.A.No.432 of 2005 seeking stay of further proceedings. The Tribunal by its order dated 14.12.2005 granted stay and the same was extended on 20.12.2005 in I.A.No.459 of 2005 till the disposal of that I.A. Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A.No.461 of 2005 for redelivery of secured asset and to allow them to carry on their business, followed by I.A.No.18 of 2006 to permit them to do their business. On contest made by the bank in I.A.No.432 of 2005, the Tribunal by order dated 29.05.2005 directed the Bank to redeliver the possession and allowed the petitioners to do their business. Later, on filing R.A.No.3 of 2007 in I.A.No.461 of 2005, the Tribunal by order dated 22.06.2007 directed the Bank to deliver the possession immediately on payment of Rs.2.00 lakhs and remaining balance amount on or before 30.07.2007. In view of the conditional order passed by the Tribunal, the bank redelivered the possession of the property on payment of Rs.2.00 lakhs on 27.06.2007. Later, the petitioners paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 02.08.2007 and Rs.1.00 lakh on 10.09.2007, but not discharged the liability as directed by the Tribunal in its order dated 22.06.2007. Since the petitioners have not complied with the conditional order for deposit of the balance amount before 30.07.2007 and have not co-operated with the Tribunal to dispose of S.A.No.129 of 2005, the Tribunal dismissed the same on 09.04.2008. Later, on dismissal of the S.A., petitioners filed S.A.No.128 of 2008 and withdrawn the same and filed I.A.No.350 of 2008 in S.A.No.129 of 2005 for restoration of S.A.No.129 of 2005. On dismissal of I.A.No.350 of 2008 on 03.10.2008, the petitioners filed R.A.No.13 of 2008 to review the order passed in I.A.No.350 of 2008. The Tribunal granted stay by order dated 03.11.2008 in R.A.No.13 of 2008 directing the petitioners to deposit Rs.3.50 lakhs by 10.11.2008 and the balance amount by 01.12.2008 and in default the stay stands vacated and posted the case to 01.12.2008. As the petitioners failed to comply the said order dated 03.11.2008, passed in R.A.No.13 of 2008, the Tribunal dismissed the R.A.No.13 of 2008 on 01.12.2008 for non compliance and non prosecution, as none represented on the said date. Subsequent to the same, the petitioners filed I.A.No.419 of 2009 seeking restoration of R.A.No.13 of 2008 on 13.07.2009. The Tribunal posted the said I.A. to 02.12.2009 for orders. In the meanwhile, the petitioners filed the present writ petition questioning the notice issued by the Bank. This Court by order dated 25.08.2009 while issuing notice before admission stayed the auction on condition of petitioners depositing Rs.5.00 lakhs on or before 08.09.2009 and the balance of Rs.5.00 lakhs on or before 22.09.2009. Petitioners though deposited Rs.5.00 lakhs on 08.09.2009, failed to deposit the balance amount, as directed by this Court on 25.08.2009. When the bank filed vacate stay petition W.V.M.P.No.4045 of 2009 on 24.11.2009, seeking vacation of the interim order, the matter was taken up for admission on 27.01.2010. As none appeared, the same was directed to be posted for dismissal on 28.01.2010. On 28.01.2010, it was represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the balance of Rs.5.00 lakhs had also been deposited in compliance of the order passed by this Court and recording the same, the matter was directed to be posted for admission on 02.02.2010. Meanwhile, the petitioners came up with an application in W.P.M.P.No.2453 of 2010, seeking extension of time till 31.03.2010 for deposit of balance of Rs.5.00 lakhs as directed by this court on 25.08.2009. Sri Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not complied with the conditional order passed by this court and hence time may be extended to deposit the balance amount. The sequence of events and facts narrated as above, indicates that the W.P.M.P.No.2453 of 2009, seeking extension of time till 31.03.2010, is only to procrastinate the sale and lacks bona fides. Petitioners having taken advantage invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and took redelivery of the property, is under obligation to comply the conditional order passed by the Tribunal or by this Court. In view of the same, the conduct of the petitioners as narrated above does not warrant extension of equitable jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for staying the public auction and preventing the Bank to recover a sum of Rs.61,24,729/- due as on 31.07.2009. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are agreeable to deposit Rs.35.00 lakhs on condition that the bank agrees for one time settlement, which itself shows that the petitioners resorted this remedy only to coerce the bank to agree with the terms proposed by the petitioners. Having regard to the above conduct and circumstances explained, we are not inclined to admit this writ petition and stay the further proceedings. Though this court cannot extend the equitable jurisdiction by postponing the auction, to have a quietus to the litigation and since the petitioners came forward to deposit Rs.35.00 lakhs, we pass the following order: On petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs by the end of February, 2010 and the balance of Rs.25.00 lakhs by 20.03.2010, the bank may consider their request, either for one time settlement or for extension of the time for payment of the balance amount and if any default is committed by the petitioners in deposit of the amounts as referred above, the bank is at liberty to proceed with the auction. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above direction. No costs. _____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 03.02.2010. Note: C.C. by one week. B/o Lmv