THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR W.P.No.5278 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The second petitioner, who is the Proprietor of the first petitioner rice mill, filed S.A.No.4 of 2009(renumbered as SA No.267 of 2010) on the file of the third respondent-Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Tribunal’) questioning the notice, dated 02.08.2008, issued by the respondents-Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’). Along with the said appeal, they filed I.A.No.16 of 2009 seeking to stay all further proceedings. Through order, dated 12.01.2009, the Tribunal granted stay on condition of the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.2 lakhs on or before 27.01.2009. As the said interim order was not complied with, the respondents-Bank issued sale notice, dated 26.11.2010. By depositing a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-after stipulated time, the petitioners again filed I.A.No.710 of 2010 before the Tribunal seeking to grant stay of the sale proceedings. The Tribunal granted stay on condition that the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondents-Bank. As the petitioners failed to comply with the said order, the Tribunal vide order, dated 28.12.2010, directed the Bank to proceed with auction of the property in question fixed on 29.12.2010 and also directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.25 lakhs on or before 27.01.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed M.A(SA) No.9 of 2011 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, which in turn directed them to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakhs on or before 23.02.2011. Challenging both the orders dated 28.12.2010 and 12.01.2011 passed in I.A.No.710 2010 in S.A.No.267 of 2010 and M.A(SA) No.9 of 2011 respectively, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that because of the mistake committed by the counsel appearing for the petitioners before the Tribunal, the petitioners have not deposited the amount within the stipulated time. He submitted that the petitioners have already deposited a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards the loan amount and that because of the financial problems they have not complied with the order passed by the appellate Tribunal, but they are ready to deposit another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- if some more time is granted. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Bank submitted that the Bank is proposing to conduct sale of the property in question on 10.03.2011. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioners have already deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and now, they are ready and willing to pay another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the credit of the loan account, we feel that it is a fit case to give one more opportunity to them. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, within a period of two months from today. Till such time, there shall be stay on condition of the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) within a period of two weeks from today. In default of payment of amount, the stay shall stand vacated and the respondents-Bank shall proceed further in accordance with law. 6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date:07.03.2011. Note: Issue operative portion of the order by wire at partys’ costs. (Bo) SJ