THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.20482 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) The first petitioner Company obtained term loan of Rs.480 lakhs from the Industrial Development Bank of India and working capital facility of about Rs.825 lakhs from the second respondent- Canara Bank, Benaras State Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank and that petitioners 2 to 4 and respondents 3 and 4 stood as guarantors for the same. As the first petitioner company became a sick industrial company as defined under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act, 1985’), it made a reference vide Case No.321 of 2004 before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, which in turn, dismissed the same on the ground of delay in referring the matter and against the same, it preferred an appeal vide Appeal No.186 of 2007 before the Appellate authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi. While so, the second respondent Bank issued a notice, dated 22.09.2010, under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act, 2002’), for which, the first petitioner company gave reply, dated 23.12.2009. Though the first petitioner company requested for One Time Settlement, the second respondent Bank rejected the same vide rejoinder notice, dated 30.12.2009. Thereafter, the second respondent Bank issued a notice dated 14.04.2010 under Section 13(4) of the Act, against which, the petitioners filed W.P.No.12593 of 2010, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.06.2010, and this Court granted liberty to them to pursue the remedy available under law. Subsequently, the second respondent Bank issued auction notice, dated 13.07.2010, by publishing in “Deccan Chronicle” English newspaper. Questioning the possession and auction notices, the petitioners have approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad by filing S.A.No.183 of 2010 along with I.A.No.762 of 2010 seeking stay of the said notices. The Tribunal dismissed the said I.A. on 13.08.2010 directing the second respondent Bank to proceed with the auction of the schedule properties scheduled to be held on 18.08.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-Bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that though the Tribunal passed the interim order on 13.08.2010 in the above said I.A., it was communicated to the petitioners on the evening of 16.08.2010 and that since the auction is scheduled to be held on 18.08.2010, the petitioners have no sufficient time to file an appeal before the appellate Tribunal and therefore, they filed this writ petition along with WPMP seeking stay of all further proceedings. He raised several contentions as regards the provisions of the Act, 1985 and the Act, 2002. 4. We have perused the material on record. The scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. Inasmuch the auction is scheduled to be held today i.e., 18.08.2010, and evidently the petitioners have no sufficient time to file an appeal against the dismissal order passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.762 of 2010 in S.A.No.183 of 2010, to meet the ends of justice, without going into the merits of the matter, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The second respondent-Bank shall proceed with the auction, which is scheduled to be held today i.e., 18.08.2010, in accordance with law and it shall not confirm the auction proceedings, for a period of two weeks from today, so as to enable the petitioners to approach the appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date:18.08.2010 sj