IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28699 of 2009 Between: K.Yadagiri. … Petitioner And Authorised Officer cum Chief Manager, ICICI Bank Limited and four others. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28699 of 2009 ORDER: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.GOPAL REDDY) Petitioner claiming to be a mortgagee of the property admeasuring 350 square yards shown as item No.4 of the property in the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, “the Act”) by the respondent-Bank filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner is not the borrower and the original title deeds of the property mortgaged with the respondent – Bank were with him, the said property cannot be a subject matter of mortgage with the respondent-Bank. Therefore, issuing the notice by the Bank for due recovery of the amount is arbitrary and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. We do not see any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though under Section 13-3(A) of the Act the principal borrower have a right to object for the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, but as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd., v. Union of India[1], the borrower may not entitle to challenge the reasons communicated or likely action of the secured creditor at that point of time i.e., at the time of issuance of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, unless his right to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal as provided under Section 17 of the Act, matures on any measure having been taken under sub-section 4 of Section 13 of the Act. If that be the case, the petitioner who is claiming to be the mortgagee of the property in respect of one item, cannot interdict the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. He can always file his objections, as and when measures are taken under Section 13(4) of the Act, before the Recovery Officer and on rejection of his claim, he can avail the remedies available to him in accordance with law. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 21st January 2010 Lmv [1] AIR 2004 SC 2371