CWP-9934/2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9934/2009 M/s Rajasthan XLO Sanwa Midland Ltd. Versus Deb Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal and others DATE OF ORDER : 05/05/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr. Mahendra Singh, for petitioner. Mr. Nikhil Singhvi ] Mrs.Anita Agarwa ], for respondents Application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. for substitution as respondent No.4 in place of ICICI Ltd. On the premise that they are the assignee of ICICI Ltd. The application has not been opposed by counsel for petitioner. The application stands allowed. The applicant Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. is allowed to be substituted as respondent No.4 in place of ICICI Ltd. Amended cause title may be placed at appropriate place in the file. Another application has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the interim order dt. 17/08/2009. However, on joint request and consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is finally disposed of at this stage. Instant writ petition has been filed against the order dt. 02/07/2009 passed by the CWP-9934/2009 2 Recovery Officer appointed under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Counsel for petitioner submits that the property, which has been put to auction by the Recovery Officer, is a through away price/distress value and there was no material available on record on the basis of which the action of the Recovery Officer can be said to be justified in disposing of the property at its distress value which requires interference of this Court. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the order, which is impugned in the instant writ petition, is appealable under Section 30 of the Act, 1993. Counsel for petitioner, after taking note of the preliminary objection raised by the respondents, submits that since the time for filing the appeal is 30 days which has already been expired, the right of the petitioner may be protected and the petitioner is ready to file appeal under the Act of 1993. Accordingly, in the light of the statutory remedy available to the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act, 1993, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but at the same time would like to observe that if CWP-9934/2009 3 appeal is preferred by the petitioner within thirty days under Section 30 of the Act, 1993, after complying with the conditions stipulated therein, it will be treated to be within limitation and the appellate authority may decide the appeal on merits obviously after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. At the same time, this Court would also like to make clear that the pre-deposit made of Rs. Seven Lacs by the petitioner under the interim order of this Court dt. 17/08/2009 will be subject to final outcome of the appeal, if preferred. With the above observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of . [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/p.3/ 9934-CW-2009-final.doc