VBC 1 wp8388.11-14.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.8388 OF 2011 Jagdeep Singh Mohan Singh Bidri. ..Petitioner. versus Dena Bank & Ors. ..Respondents. ..... Mr.Vijay D.Patil with Mr.A.R.Kapadnis for the Petitioner. Ms.Pallavi Khangaonkar i/b.Mrs.A.W.Barve for Respondent o.1. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. October 14, 2011. P.C. : A recovery certificate has been issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The First Respondent had arrived at a one time settlement with the principal borrower in the amount of Rs.25 lakhs in 2006, but there was a default in compliance with the terms of the settlement. The Original Application was decreed and a recovery certificate was issued. The property was put to sale. The Recovery Officer set aside the sale after making the Petitioner a party to the proceedings. The father of the Petitioner, who was a partner in the Second Respondent, a partnership firm, died, upon which the Petitioner has contested the proceedings. The order of VBC 2 wp8388.11-14.10 the Recovery Officer setting aside the sale was reversed in appeal by the DRT on 5 August 2011. Following this, on 30 September 2011, the Recovery Officer has directed that the sale certificate be issued. The Petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in order to impugn the order of the Tribunal dated 5 August 2011. The Presiding Officer of the DRAT at Mumbai has retired and concurrent charge has been given to the Chairperson of the DRAT at Kolkata. An application for interim relief has to be moved at Kolkata. The Court has been informed by Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that as a matter of fact, the Chairperson at Kolkata was moved, but the hearing has now been fixed on the application for interim relief on 1 November 2011 since the papers have been called for from Mumbai. Having regard to this background, and without going into a detailed consideration on the merits of the case, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the effect that the First Respondent shall maintain the status quo until 1 November 2011. The Court has been informed VBC 3 wp8388.11-14.10 that service on the auction purchaser was attempted but Respondent No.10, has refused service. Counsel states that an affidavit to that effect has been filed. Since we have granted only limited ad interim protection till 1 November 2011 without expressing a view on merits, we have not directed the issuance of notice to the auction purchaser, Respondent No.10. A copy of this order shall forthwith be served by the Petitioner on Respondent No.10 who will be at liberty, in the event he seeks any modification of the order, to move the Court with prior intimation to the Advocates appearing for the Petitioner and the First Respondent. In the event that no further ad-interim order is passed by the DRAT, the First Respondent shall be at liberty to take steps in accordance with law. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( A. A. Sayed, J.)