THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.4190 OF 2011 DATED:11.11.2011 Between: M. Venkatapathy and others … Petitioners And Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Having its regd. Office at 36-38A Nariman Bhavan, 227, Nariman Point Mumbai and also having office at 6-3-109/1/P202 2nd Floor, Jewel Pavani Tower Raj Bhavan Road Somajiguda, Hyderabad, through its Authorized Officer Mr. Harish Kumar Acharya and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.4190 OF 2011 ORDER: The first respondent – Bank has resorted to recovery proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Sarfaesi Act’) and in pursuance thereof, under Section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act they approached the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for seeking possession of the premises in which the petitioners alleged that they are carrying on business as tenants of Smt. K. Bhyagya Lakshmi, W/o.K.V. Satyanarayana. While the first petitioner is a tenant of ground floor, petitioners 2 and 3 are tenants of first floor portions. Alleging that the petitioners would be forcibly dispossessed, and pleading equities, including education of children, this writ petition was filed on the ground that without notice to the petitioners, they cannot be evicted. Looking at the facts and circumstances and the plight of school going children pleaded in the affidavit, this Court, while admitting the writ petition on 24.2.2011 directed that ‘the proposed auction may go on. However, the petitioners shall not be evicted from the premises, until further orders.’ A vacate petition has since been filed, and was heard on 2.11.2011. While both the learned counsel advanced arguments in the writ petition itself, on that, the petitioners’ counsel requested ten days time to enable the petitioners to settle the matter with the bank. Accordingly, the writ petition was adjourned and is taken up today for further hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, is not able to report any settlement with the bank and pleads sympathetic consideration to their case. I am unable to see any justification for petitioners obstructing the first respondent’s legal right as a creditor, including proceedings under the Sarfaesi Act. In view of the latest pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyavati Tondon[1], the maintainability of the writ petition as well as the claim of third party like a tenant in interdicting the proceedings under Section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act, was specifically considered and rejected by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the said judgment. In addition to that, an effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, as already held by the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India[2]. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal, under Section 17 of the Sarfaesi Act, if so advised, and seek appropriate orders. No costs. _______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR , J 11.11.2011 bnr [1] (2010) 8 SCC 110 [2] (2004) 4 SCC 311