IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 26664 of 2008 Between: D.B. Chandra Shekar Rao S/o. D. Ram Kotaiah R/o. Chanda Nagar Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Indian Bank Rep. by its Authorised Officer Begumpet Branch, Begumpet, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ one in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction, order declaring the action of the Respondent in proceedings with the sale by publication dated 25-10- 2008 issued under Section 13 (4) of the SERFAESI Act, 2002 is contrary to the Section 17(4) of the SERFAESI Act, 2002 unless the validity of the notice under Section 13(4) dated 21-08-2007 is determined is without jurisdiction, arbitrary, unreasonable. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.CH.VEDAVANI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.26664 of 2008 ORDER: 1 Petitioner applied for grant of loan of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and the same was sanctioned by the respondent – Bank. Though the petitioner paid substantial amounts, the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 13 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) on the premise that the loan amount was not repaid within the time provided for by it. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed S.A.No.19 of 2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and though the said Tribunal initially granted stay of all further proceedings, subsequently vacated the stay order on 28.05.2008. In the light of the vacation of the stay orders, the respondent – Bank issued a notification proposing to auction the residential house of the petitioner that was mortgaged at the time of granting the loan. Questioning the same petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 2 Heard Mr. Ashok, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.Satyanarayana, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 3 It is the contention of the learned standing counsel that the petitioner is not cooperating with the enquiry and is unnecessarily protracting the application pending before the Tribunal on one pretext or the other. However, the learned senior counsel Mr. Ashok gave an undertaking that the petitioner will cooperate with the said enquiry and for early disposal of S.A.No.19 of 2008 pending before the Tribunal. 4 In the light of the said undertaking given by Mr. Ashok, the auction proposed to take place on 06.12.2008 is hereby directed to be postponed by three weeks and the S.A.No.19 of 2008 pending on the file of the Tribunal shall be disposed of within a period of two weeks from today. The parties are hereby directed to appear before the Tribunal on 10.12.2008, so that, the Tribunal may take up the matter on that day itself or on any other convenient day before the time fixed by this Court. 5 With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. --------------------------- SRI T.G.K, J. 05.12.2008 C.C. by Monday B/o kvsn