THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :31667 OF 2011 Dated: 1.12.2011 Between: M/s. B.V.R. Bricks Industry rep., by its Proprietor. ..Petitioner And The State Bank of Hyderabad, rep., by Authorized Officer. ..Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No :31667 OF 2011 ORDER (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to grant time to the petitioner for payment of balance loan amount and meanwhile, not to initiate any further proceedings in respect of residential building in Sy.No.54, Deveryamjal Shamirpet Mandal, Rangareddy District, admeasuring 749.69 sq. yards. The petitioner obtained loan from the respondent-Bank and failed to pay the monthly instalments regularly and hence, the respondent-Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’), and ultimately brought the properties to sale. The main contention of the petitioner-firm is that it is willing to clear off the loan within one year and therefore, a direction may be given to the respondent not to take any coercive steps in respect of the properties. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. No relief as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted. As against the proposed sale, the petitioner has effective remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner without availing such effective and alternative remedy, has filed the present writ petition. In United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Others[1], the Supreme Court held that ordinarily, the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner is always at liberty to approach the Bank for grant of time to clear off the balance loan amount or avail the remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________ N.V.RAMANA, J ____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 1.12.2011 Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :31667 OF 2011 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 1.12.2011 Nn [1] AIR 2010 SC 3413