WIRE AT PARTY’S COSTS TO 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ING VYSYA BANK LTD., TADEPALLIGUDEM BRANCH, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. BOLLA NANCHARAMMA W/O. RAMULU R/O PEDATUMMIDI VILLAGE, BANTUMILLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. BY ORDER OF HIGH COURT DATED 04-03-2009 IN W.P.NO. 4097 OF 2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIZ., BOLLA DEEPATHI – THE WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS THAT IT IS ISSUED UNDER RULE 38 AND RULE 52(2) OF THE SECOND SCHEDULE OF INCOME TAX ACT,1961 WHICH APPLIES FOR RECOVERY UNDER RECOVERY OF DEBTS TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT, 1993 (ACT 51/93) VIDE SEC. 29 OF THE ACT. THE PETITIONER’S BASIC SUBMISSION IS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.13 OF THE SARFAESI ACT HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED IS WIHTOUT SUBSTANCE INASUCH AS PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING TAKEN UNDER RECOVERY OF DEBTS TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT,1993. SECONDLY, THE CONTENTION THAT THE GUARANTEE IS NOT SUBSISTING ANY MORE ALSO PRIMA FACIE DIES NOT APPEAR TO BE CORRECT, INASMUCH AS IN THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER IS Jr. Dr. NO. 2 AS PER O.A. 77/2006. THUS, THERE IS A DECREE OBTAINED BY THE BANK AGAINST THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER ALSO. HOWEVER, EVEN IF THE PETITIONER WANTS TO CONTEND THAT AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SHE IS NOT BOUND BY THE SAID DECREE AND SHE IS NOT LIABLE FOR RECOVERY, IT IS OPEN FOR THE PETITIONER TO APPROACH THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER SECOND SCHEDULE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE CLAIM PETITION, WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO WEEKS FROM TODAY, IF SHE IS SO ADVISED. NO RELIEF, HOWEVER, CAN BE GRANTED IN THIS WRIT PETITION. ORDER FOLLOWS HIGH COURT W.P. No. 25555 of 2008 FOR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR BV