1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5441 OF 2009 Eknath Bhaguji Satpute, age: 62 years, Occ: Retired, R/o Lav-Ankush Colony, Maldad Road, Sangamner, Tq.Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar. Petitioner Versus The General Manager, The Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd., Sangamner, Indira Gandhi Marg, Navin Nagar Road, Sangamner, Tq.Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar. Respondent Mr.S.K.Shinde, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for Respondent CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 5th May, 2010. P.C.: 1 Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has brought to my notice judgment in the matter of Trade Well & another Vs. Indian Bank & another, reported in 2007 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 783. Relying on the observations made in paragraphs no. 70 and 71, it is contended that even a third party has entitlement to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal and avail of the remedy as provided under Section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The relevant observations are quoted below: 2 “70 It is also not possible for us to hold that remedy provided under section 17 is not available to a third party. This section begins with the words `Any person (including borrower) aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13’. In our opinion the words `Any person (including borrower)’ cover third parties also. Under section 13(3A), the secured creditor is required to communicate to the borrower reasons for not accepting his objection to the notice under section 13(2) but the reasons so communicated does not confer any right on the borrower to make an application before the DRT under section 17. Explanation to section 17 states that communication of reasons to the borrower does not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to DRT under section 17(1) at the stage of communication. This supports our conclusion that even a third party can make an application under section 17. In fact Ms.Maravarman, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-bank has drawn our attention to the judgments of the DRT where rights of third parties are dealt with any relief is granted to them. 71 There is also no substance in the submission that no relief can be given to a third party because section 17(3) speaks only of restoration of possession of the secured asset to the borrower. Section 17(3) states that if the DRT comes to the conclusion that any of the measures stated in section 13(4), taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the NPA Act and the Rules made thereunder, it can restore possession of the secured assets to the borrower or restore the management of the secured asset to the borrower. Section 17(3) further goes on to say that DRT can pass such order as it may consider appropriate and necessary in relation to any of the recourse taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that no orders can be passed in respect of third parties by DRT under section 17. Section 18 which provides for appeal to Appellate Tribunal also states that any person aggrieved, by any order made by DRT under section 17, may prefer an appeal to an Appellate Tribunal.” 3 2 In this view of the matter, petitioner has liberty to challenge impugned actions by taking recourse to provisions of Section 17 of the Act. Instant writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable. 3 In view of availability of alternate remedy under Section 17 of the Act and bar to entertain dispute by Civil Court, as contemplated by provisions of the Act, Writ Petition stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp544109