HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 29960 OF 2010 Between: Vishwanath Agarwal S/o Late Sri Muralidhar Agarwal and one another ………….Petitioners AND Union Bank of India, Asignagar Branch ………….Respondent ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in taking over the possession of the property of the petitioners viz., Flat No. 31, III Floor, admeasuring 1600 sq. fts together with undivided share of land admeasuring 50 sq.yds, in Door No. 5-9-22/A, situated at Shapoorwadi, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners secured a loan amount of Rs. 13,37,000/- from the respondent- Bank herein on 18.10.2005 under Union Home Scheme repayable in 180 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 12,970/- with interest @ 8.25% per annum by depositing original title deeds of their property viz., flat NO. 31, III Floor, admeasuring 1600 sq.fts together with undivided share of land admeasuring 50 sq. yds., in Door No. 5-9- 22/A, situated at Shapoorwadi, Hyderabad. It is stated that the respondent-Bank also sanctioned a cash credit facility for Rs. 45,00,000/- to M/s Bhagya Laxmi Jewelers, represented by its proprietor Mr. Nithin Kumar Agarwal on 27.10.2005, who is the son of the petitioners herein. While so, the respondent-Bank has issued a notice dated 8.10.2009 exercising powers under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(for short “the SRFAESI Act”) and thereafter on 14.12.2009 had also issued a notice under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act asking the petitioners to vacate the premises and handover the possession to them. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the entire material made available on record. Without going into the merits or otherwise of the matter this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed inasmuch as under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act, any aggrieved person can file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Section 17 of the Act reads as under: “Right to appeal: (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub- section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may prefer an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken. (2) Where an appeal is preferred by a borrower, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Debts Recovery Tribunal unless the borrower has deposited with the Debts Recovery Tribunal seventy five percent of the amount claimed in the notice referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 13: Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section. (3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall, as far s may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and rules made thereunder.” Be that as it may, the Supreme Court also in SLP (c ) No. 10145 of 2010 dated 26th July 2010 at paragraph 27 of the judgment observed as under: “27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SRFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the above observation of the Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No. 10145 of 2010, without going into the merits of the matter the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J DATE: 13.12.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.