IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.30134 of 2010 Between: M/s.Srinivasa Traders, rep. by its Partner Sri Davu Venkata Sivudu ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Dhana Lakshmi Bank rep. by Authorised Officer .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.30134 of 2010 ORDER: (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) In this writ petition, the petitioner-firm, which is a small scale industry to which one Smt Acharla Anitha is a partner, seeks for a declaration that the action of the respondent-Bank in issuing Sale by Tender notice dated 20.11.2010 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the order passed in I.A.No.628 of 2010 in S.A.No.216 of 2010 dated 19.10.2010 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (Tribunal), and for a direction to the respondent- Bank not to proceed with the sale proceedings pursuant to the above tender notice. 2. The case of the petitioner-firm is that it obtained a loan of Rs.16,00,000/- from the respondent-Bank with one Sri Bala Swamy as guarantor. After obtaining loan, it used to pay the instalments regularly but due to the misunderstandings between the earlier Manager of the respondent-Bank and it, the respondent-Bank, without any default, issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘Act’) demanding it to pay a sum of Rs.16,19,772.84ps and while doing so the respondent-Bank did not follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act. It is alleged that under Section 8 of the Act the respondent-Bank has to publish the notice in two vernacular newspapers but it did not do so and straightaway issued notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the said Act. It is stated that the petitioner-firm filed an appeal S.A.No.628 of 2010 in the Tribunal questioning the issuance of the possession and sale notices dated 20.09.2010 under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act by the respondent-Bank and also filed an application I.A.No.628 of 2010 seeking interim stay of all further proceedings taken by the respondent-Bank under the provisions of the Act pursuant to the notices stated supra. In the said I.A., the Tribunal by the order dated 19.09.2010 granted ad-interim stay restraining the respondent-Bank from taking all further proceedings under the provisions of the Act subject to the petitioner-firm depositing 10% of Rs.16,69,041/- (being the amount claimed in the possession notice dated 20.09.2010) on or before 22.10.2010 and another 10% of the said amount on or before 22.11.2010 and in default of the payments granted liberty to the respondent-Bank to proceed with the further proceedings as per the possession and sale notices stated supra. It is contended that though the petitioner-firm paid Rs.1,07,000/- on 22.10.2010 and Rs.44,000/- on 25.10.2010 towards part of the first instalment and though the second instalment is due by 22.11.2010, the respondent-Bank in violation of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the I.A., issued the Sale by Tender notice on 20.11.2010. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- firm and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank. 4. This Court on 01.12.2010 when the matter came up for hearing directed that the auction in question may go on but the sale shall not be confirmed. 5. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-firm that though the petitioner-firm could not make full payment as directed by the Tribunal and paid Rs.1,61,000/- only towards the first instalment, today it has obtained five demand drafts worth Rs.1,72,800/- being the amount towards the balance of first instalment and second instalment and pleaded that the sale proceedings may be stopped till the disposal of the second appeal which is pending adjudication before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Bank fairly acceded to the above plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner-firm and to receive the said demand drafts. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner-firm has handed over five demand drafts dated 07.12.2010 worth Rs.1,72,800/- to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank in our presence. 7. Since the Second Appeal is pending adjudication before the Tribunal and since the petitioner-firm has deposited the amount as directed by the Tribunal though with some delay, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the Second Appeal pending before it as expeditiously as possible at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of this order and till such time the direction passed by this Court on 01.12.2010 that the auction in question may go on, but the sale shall not be confirmed shall continue to be in force. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. 7th December 2010 CVRK