[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION W.P.L.NO.1470 OF 2006 Sai Fashion Exports Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioners Vs. Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. ..Respondents ... Mr.Sanjay Jain with Ms.Ranade i/b Beri & Co. for Petitioners Mr.Janak Dwarkadas Senior Counsel with Mr.Satish Shetye, Meenakshi Mhapunkar, Nikhil Rajani i/b V.Deshpande & Co. for Respondents Mr.A.Munshi with Mr.Sandeep Bhagwat for M/s.Bombay Rayon Pvt. Ltd. Auction Purchaser ... CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : JUNE 28, 2006 DATE : JUNE 28, 2006 DATE : JUNE 28, 2006 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard parties. 2. There is no dispute that petitioners are indebted to Respondents. In fact, consent terms were filed before the Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies on 15.6.2005. The petitioners herein admitted taking a loan of Rs.2.25 crores. Admittedly, the liability as on 28.2.2005 is to the tune of Rs.2,21,58,123/- and [-2-] that carries further interest as per the consent terms. There was one more clause i.e. clause 6 which sets out that Respondent Bank at its discretion may offer terms for settlement in due course. By letter dated 29.6.2005 in response to letter of the petitioner dated 24.6.2005, the Bank recorded the discussion which the Respondent had with the petitioners to pay Rs.25 lakhs before 24.6.2005 and remaining balance before 2-3 months. In other words, in terms of the compromise terms, in the matter of payment petitioners were informed and this is very much reflected in the letter of 29.6.2005. No amount, as set out, has been so far paid. 3. Petitioners had created charge in favour of Respondent in respect of plant, machinery and land. As there was default by the petitioners, Notice was served under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Securitisation Act’) and after the reply, Notice was issued under the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act. It is the case of the Respondent-Bank that possession was [-3-] taken and that is borne by the record, which shows that in pursuance to the discussion between the parties, Respondent was allowed to enter into premises with permission of the Bank and allowed to use the factory premises as an agent of the petitioner. As there was default on the part of the petitioners, Respondent took back possession of the premises and put the property for auction sale for which there was a such bidder. 4. Petitioners approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal to challenge the sale on the ground that after consent terms, possession of the premises had been handed over to them and as such, Respondent could not have sold the property pursuant to the earlier Notice issued under Section 13 of the Securitisation Act. This contention found favour with the learned Member of the Debt Recovery Tribunal who allowed the application filed by the Petitioners herein. 5. Aggrieved the Respondent preferred an appeal before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The learned Appellate Tribunal after considering the record, came to the conclusion that there was no [-4-] waiver and that in fact, the petitioners were on the property merely as agent of Respondents. The learned Tribunal also recorded a finding about the terms of payment in terms of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and Respondent before the authorities under the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act. 6. At the hearing of this petition on behalf of petitioners, the learned counsel sought to raise various grounds. The question is whether this Court in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction ought to interfere with the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. In the first instance, admittedly the amount due and payable by the Petitioners, has been crystalised. The terms of the payment, in terms of the compromise were also made known to the petitioners. The petitioners failed to pay the amount in terms of compromise recorded by letter dated 29.6.2005. Secondly, there is no dispute that there was charge created in favour of Respondent by the petitioners in respect of plant, machinery and land. The object of the Securitisation Act, is to enable a financial institution to take steps for recovery of [-5-] amounts due and payable to it by exercising the powers conferred under the Securitisation Act. This is restricted in so far as the property which is charged in favour of Respondent financial institution is concerned. Merely because, a decree has been obtained, will not stand in the way of the financial institution taking recourse under the provisions of Securitisation Act for sale of the assets charged in its favour. The sale proceeds will have to be adjusted against the decretal amount. The petitioners have also not made any offer to this Court that they are willing to deposit the decretal amount. 7. In our opinion, the order of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and or suffers from any error of jurisdiction. This would therefore, not be a fit case for reasons set out above to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction. Petition is dismissed. [ F.I.REBELLO, J.] [-6-] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]