1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1664 OF 2009 Bhisma Nanubhai Thakore & two ors. .. Petitioners -versus- The State of Maharashtra & anr. .. Respondents Mr.Subhash Jha h/f.M/s.Law Global, for petitioner. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP for resp.State. Mr.B.Chandre h/f.M/s.Law Focus, for respondent no2. CORAM: Smt. RANJANA DESAI & R. G. KETKAR JJ. DATED: 15th July, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 13th May, 2009 passed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ( “NPA Act” for short ). However, the said order is not annexed to the petition. We fail to understand how such a petition can be entertained by any Court. Notice dated 4th June, 2009 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Office, Esplanade, Mumbai is also 2 challenged and a copy of the said notice is, however, annexed to the petition. For reasons which we shall soon state it is not necessary to dilate on this issue. 2. In Trade Well & anr. Vs. Indian Bank & anr. [2001(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 783 the Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us [Smt.Ranjana Desai, J.] was a party, after following the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s.Transcore Vs. Union of India & Anr. [AIR 2007 SC 712], has taken a view that at the stage of Section 14 of the N.P.A. Act there is no adjudication of any kind and the remedy provided under Section 17 of the NPA Act is available to the borrower as well as to the third party. It is therefore not possible for us to entertain this petition. 3. We may note a very peculiar feature of this case. An affidavit has been filed by one Jigar Dalal who is the Chief Manager of second respondent – creditor. To that affidavit is enclosed a letter dated 13th June, 2009 addressed by the second respondent - Chief Operating Officer to the Assistant Registrar, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, requesting him to keep the impugned order under abeyance till the receipt of entire payment. In fact, learned Counsel for the second respondent informed us that the second respondent is not keen to immediately execute the impugned order. In this case, therefore, there is no immediate apprehension of dispossession. Besides we have also noticed from letter dated 7th 3 May, 2009 annexed to this petition at Exhibit “I” that the entire amount has to be paid by the petitioner on or before 31st August, 2009 as per the schedule given in the said letter. Therefore, the petitioner has time upto 31st August, 2009 to make the payment. 4. In our opinion, since there is no immediate apprehension of dispossession, the petitioner can prefer an application under Section 17 of the NPA Act. It is well settled that while dealing with an application under Section 17 in a given case the Debts Recovery Tribunal can even put debtor back in possession of the assets if it finds that creditor’s action is arbitrary, illegal or mala fide. 5. Keeping all contentions raised of both sides open the petition is dismissed. We make it clear that the on merits of the petition we have not expressed any opinion. (R.G. KETKAR, J) (Smt. RANJANA DESAI, J)