1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.(MD).No.8814 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 S.S.T.Rajendran : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Keerambur Branch, Thuraiyur Trichy District. 2.The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, 549/50, Opponkkara Street, Coimbatore 641 001. 3.The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Ethiraj College Road, Chennai 600 008. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed in I.A.No.747 of 2008 in S.A.No.295 of 2008, on the file of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dated 29.04.2009 and the consequential sale notice dated 25.06.2011 issued by the Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Coimbatore, under Rule 8(6) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, bringing the sale of secured assets and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to admit the petitioner for One Time Settlement after fixing the liability of the petitioner only in accordance with the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 framed by the Finance Ministry, Government of India, issued by the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) and endorsed by Reserve Bank of India. For Petitioner : Mr.S.K.Mani For Respondent : Mr.T.Govindasamy ORDER [Order of the Court was made BY M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner, being a borrower, has come forward to file the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 29.04.2009 passed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 in I.A.No.747 of 2008 in S.A.No.295 of 2008, by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the consequential sale notice dated 25.06.2011 issued by the second respondent under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, [for short the Rules"]. 2. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, it appears that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in S.A.No.295 of 2008 and an order was passed in I.A.No.747 of 2008 in the application filed by the petitioner to waive the deposit of 50% of the amount as per Section 18(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short "the Act"] Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to comply with the mandatory deposit under Section 18 (1) of the Act. Challenging the said order and the sale notice dated 25.06.2011 issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conditional order passed by the third respondent – Appellate Tribunal could not be complied with, for the reason that the auction was held on the very same day, when the conditional order was passed by the third respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that the secured asset is a residential house and the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the said amount. 4. It is seen from the records that the auction has been conducted on 04.08.2011 by the second respondent and at that stage, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 29.04.2009 passed in I.A.No.747 of 2008 in S.A.No.295 of 2008, by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the consequential sale notice dated 25.06.2011 issued by the second respondent under Rule 8(6) of the Rules. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, as directed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, coupled with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 fact that the secured asset is a residential house, we permit the petitioner to approach the third respondent – Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to file an application to condone the delay in complying with the conditional order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner is given two weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to make such an application. Till the application of the petitioner is disposed of, status-quo, as-on-today, shall be maintained. As and when the petitioner files such an application within the time stipulated in this order, the third respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O.) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Keerambur Branch, Thuraiyur Trichy District. 2.The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, 549/50, Opponkkara Street, Coimbatore 641 001. 3.The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Ethiraj College Road, Chennai 600 008. +1cc to Mr.T.Govindasamy, Advocate Sr.No.26809 NB akm/12.08.11 /3p-5c/ ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).No.8814 of 2011 08.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/