PNP 1 WP8552-17.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8552 OF 2011 Garodia Chemicals Ltd. and others ..Petitioners. versus Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. and another ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Rishabh Shah i/b M/s. Raval Shah & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Udeshi i/b M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Respondent No.1. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. 17 October 2011. P.C. : 1. The First Respondent has a recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Mumbai on 22 January 2004 in the amount of Rs.1.93 Crores together with interest. An appeal was filed by the Petitioners in which delay is stated to have been condoned on 22 November 2006 by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and an order for the deposit of Rs.30 lacs was passed. According to the Petitioners an amount of Rs.30 lacs was deposited on 2 January 2007 as directed. In the meantime, on 30 March 2011 the debt account of the Petitioner was assigned to the First Respondent who issued a demand notice on 28 July 2011. On 30 September 2011 the Petitioners received two possession notices under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in respect of the secured assets at PNP 2 WP8552-17.10.sxw Raigad and Ghatkopar, respectively. The secured asset at Raigad is a factory whereas the secured asset at Ghatkopar is a shopping center. The First Respondent has taken symbolic possession of the secured asset at Raigad but has not yet taken possession of the secured asset at Ghatkopar since the Petitioners refused to handover possession. 2. The submission of Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners is that in the appeal which has been filed against the recovery certificate before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 9 April 2007 directed that the interim stay of the recovery proceedings shall continue. Consequently, it was urged that it was not open to the First Respondent to take possession under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. On the other hand, Counsel appearing on behalf of the First Respondent while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Transcore v. Union of India1 states that the remedy under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is independent of the remedy under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993. 4. In our view, it is not necessary for the Court to express any view or to make any finding on the rival submissions since the Petitioners at this stage are seeking some protection in order to 1 (2008) 1 SCC 125. PNP 3 WP8552-17.10.sxw enable them to move the Tribunal under Section 17 and urge all appropriate submissions in that forum including the submission which has been recorded herein above. We accede to the request of the learned counsel by directing that the First Respondent shall initially take only symbolic possession of the secured asset at Ghatkopar which the Petitioners state that they shall handover. Thereafter upon symbolic possession being taken, forcible possession of the secured asset shall not be taken for a period of six weeks so as to enable the Petitioners to move the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In the event that no ad interim orders are passed by the Tribunal within the aforesaid period, it will be open to the First Respondent to take further steps in accordance with law. No further directions are sought. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. 5. In the event that the Petitioners are obstructed in taking symbolic possession, it would be open to the First Respondent to take possession in accordance with law and the ad interim protection granted by this order would then stand vacated without further reference to the Court. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)