IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11677 of 2011 M/S Royal Aluminium Company Limited through Naresh Kumar Agrawal son of Late Deen Dayal Agrawal, resident of Flat No. 710-E, Deena Tower, Exhibition Road, Patna. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Bank of India through its Chief Manager, Stressed Assets Resolution Centre, 2nd Floor, Patna Main Branch, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 2. The Authorized Officer, Stressed Assets Management Branch, State Bank Of India, 2nd Floor, Patna, Main Branch West Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 3. The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal Bank Road, Patna. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Abinabh Kumar, Advcoate. For the respondent-Bank : Mr. Aditya Saran, Advocate. --------- 03/ 24.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 30.03.2011 (Annexure-2) by which the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna directed the petitioner to pay the reserve price which was Rs.2.30 crores. 3. It transpires that the petitioner had earlier moved this court vide CWJC No.3775 of 2001 challenging general auction issued by the Authorised Officer, Stressed Assets Management Branch, State Bank of India, Patna published in Hindi daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ dated 06.02.2011 by which personal property of the petitioner had been put on auction for realisation of alleged dues of Rs.3,89,10,215.35 against the loan and the date for auction had been fixed on 09.03.2011 and for other ancillary reliefs. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated - 2 - 26.04.2011 (Annexure-1) on the ground that when the proceeding has already been initiated with respect to the same subject and an order has been passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in that regard, thee is no occasion for this court to continue with the said writ petition. However, petitioner was given liberty to challenge any order passed by the Tribunal or any authority before this court, if he was legally entitled to do so. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that earlier Rs.2 crores was settled by the respondents and the petitioner throughout acted upon the same and hence the authorities cannot legally demand anything more than that and the impugned demand of Rs.2.30 crores was illegal and perverse. 5. From the entire facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that the petitioner has not only lost before the Tribunal but has also lost before this court with respect to the claims raised by him. Furthermore, admittedly the reserve price was Rs.2.30 crores and hence the borrower has to pay the reserve price to save his property from sale as now his scope has become very limited. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)