:1: 6484.11-wp bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6484 OF 2011 Mrs.Vandana Sudhir Kulkarni ..Petitioner Vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.J.Shekhar i/b. M/s.J.Shekhar & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.Srinivas Balaji Yelery for Respondent. .... CORAM :- DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE :- 17 AUGUST 2011. P.C. 1. The petition has been taken up for admission with the consent of both the learned Counsel. . 2. The Petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in order to challenge the orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal dated 31 December 2010 and 23 March 2011. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution were required to be instituted in this Court despite the pendency of the appeal proceedings, since the term of the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai has come to an end and a fresh appointment is still to be made by the Union Government. Hence, it has been urged that :2: 6484.11-wp though a Miscellaneous Application has been taken out before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal for protecting the possession of the Petitioner in respect of a residential house at Pune, an application for interim relief could not be moved before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in view of the fact that the office of the Chairperson is vacant. The Court has been informed that arrangements have been made by the Union Government pursuant to which the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata has to hold concurrent charge of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai. In this view of the matter, while we are inclined to relegate the Petitioner to the remedy of the pending appeal which has already been instituted, we are of the view that some limited protection should be granted to the Petitioner so as to enable her to espouse an appellate remedy on the next available date before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 3. The Petitioner has been informed by the Tahasildar, Pune on 9 August 2011 that on 18 August 2011 possession of the residential house would be taken. Symbolic possession has already been taken by the Respondent Bank. Accordingly, we direct that for a period of four weeks from today, forcible possession of the residential house shall not be taken so as to enable the Petitioner to pursue an application for interim relief before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. In the event that the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal convenes a hearing at Mumbai before the expiry of the aforesaid period of four weeks, the Petitioner shall make an application on the first available date in which event, the ad-interim protection granted by this Court would come to an end upon the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, we dispose of the petition by directing that the Respondent Bank shall not take forcible possession of the residential house at Pune for a period of four weeks from today. :3: 6484.11-wp 4. We clarify that we had no occasion to consider the merits of the application which the Petitioner seeks to move before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and all rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 5. Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the office. (A.A.SAYED,J.) (DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J.)