THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P.NO.20461 OF 2011 Dated: 10.10.2011 Between: M/s Mallikarjuna Hot Mix BT Plant, Tamallagudem village, rep., by its Prop: D. Venkataiah ..Petitioner And The Bank of Maharastra Champapet Branch .. Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P.NO.20461 OF 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in conducting auction on 15.7.2011 in violation of the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to set aside the sale dated 15.7.2011 in respect of Plot Nos.140 and 141 North part admeasuring 426 sq. yards in Sy.No.57 part Ward No.8 Block No.6 Venkataramana Colony, Karmanghat village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. The case of the petitioner is that it availed Long Term loan from the respondent-Bank and offered immovable property viz., land in Yacharam Mandal where the petitioner-firm is situated and Plot Nos.140 and 141 admeasuring 426 sq. yards in Sy.No.57 situated at Karmanghat village, Saroornagar Mandal, as security. The petitioner- firm suffered huge loss in the business and decided to sell the property to repay the loan to the respondent-Bank and accordingly, the petitioner-firm approached the Bank and submitted proposals for one time settlement and subsequently, on the instructions of the bank, it has deposited Rs.50,000/-. While so, the respondent-Bank initiated action by publishing the sale notice in Deccan chronicle news paper on 15.6.2011, without serving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and also the possession notice. Hence, the present writ petition. The respondent-Bank filed a counter-affidavit contending that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued by registered post and also served personally and obtained acknowledgement. The notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was also issued and published in two newspapers and against the action taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Act, there is a remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, but without availing such remedy, the petitioner approached this Court and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The said contention was not disputed by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner. On 21.7.2011, while admitting the writ petition, this Court granted interim direction not to confirm the sale. In the above circumstances and in view of the fact that there is remedy of appeal available under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner-firm has to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal to seek appropriate remedy. In view of the same, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. But however, in order to protect the interest of the petitioner and in view of the subsistence of the interim direction till today, we feel it appropriate to continue the interim direction for a period of four weeks from today. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ Justice N.V. Ramana DATE: 10.10.2011 ____________________ Justice P. Durga Prasad nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P.No.20461 of 2011 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 10.10.2011 Nn