IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHENDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 13005 of 2010 Between: M/.Seshaiah Naidu Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Secunderabad & another .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WP No.13005 OF 2010 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J ) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the demand notice dated 10-6-2009 issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, for short ‘the Act’ and the consequential possession notice dated 25-5- 2010 issued under Section 13 (4) of the Act by the respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act and without jurisdiction and set aside the same. 2. The facts as stated by the writ petitioner is that he availed a cash credit loan for Rs.2 crores and bank guarantee facility with a limit of Rs.2 crores. It is stated that sanction of these credit facilities was valid for 12 months from the date of sanction and also subject to terms and conditions stipulated by the respondent-Bank. However, the petitioner has not complied with the terms and conditions governing the sanction thereby rendering the account irregular. 3. The petitioner submitted that issuance of demand notice dated 10-6-2009 under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act and before issuance of the possession notice dated 25-5-2010, the respondent- bank has initiated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, for the recovery of the amount due and payable. It is stated that once the respondent-bank chooses to proceed for recovery under the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the proceedings initiated under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act is deemed to be dropped. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-bank. 5. It is clear from the facts stated that the respondent-bank issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act and before issuance of the possession notice dated 25-5-2010 under Section 13 (4), the respondent-bank has initiated proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, for recovery of the amount. No prejudice can be said to be caused to the writ petitioner by initiation of proceedings before the DRT and it no longer invalidate the proceedings taken under the SARFAESI Act. In the circumstances, this writ petition is misconceived as the petitioner is having an efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. It is observed that this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner taking proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. No costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J _____________________ G.Chandariah,J Date : 23-6-2010 Note: cc 3 days. (b/o) Nrg. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WP No.13005 OF 2010 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J ) 23-6-2010