HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 29221 OF 2010 Between: Kolli Venkateshwara Rao and another ………….Petitioners AND The Reserve Bank of India, and another ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he paid all the instalments the respondents- Bank is issued notice dated 13-12-2010 demanding the petitioner to handover the secured assets, failing which they will proceed as per law. A plain reading of Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SRFAESI Act”) reveals that if any person aggrieved may prefer an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal within forty five days from the date on which such measures had been taken. The relevant portion reads as under: “17. Right to appeal:- (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may prefer an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken. (2) Where an appeal is preferred by a borrower, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Debts Recovery Tribunal unless the borrower has deposited with the Debts Recovery Tribunal seventy five per cent of the amount claimed in the notice referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 13: Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section. (3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and rules made thereunder.” Be that as it may, the Supreme Court in SLP © No. 10145 of 2010 dated 26th July 2010 observed as under: “It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” Following the above Supreme Court Judgment, the Writ Petition is dismissed and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J DATE: 24.11.2010 kk/KA HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 29221 OF 2010