HON'BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 22258 OF 2006 Between: M/s Mega City Properties Limited, Secunderabad ..... Petitioner AND Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad & others .....Respondents :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioner : Shri P. Venu Gopal Dated: 27.10.2006 Per G.S.SINGHVI, CJ In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a direction to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’) to decide I.A.No.940 of 2005 and/or O.A.No.236 of 2000 and till then stay the proceedings of Criminal Case Nos. 97 and 98 of 2000 pending in the Court of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. A perusal of the record shows that on an application made by the representative of the petitioner, the Vysya Bank (for short, ‘the bank’) sanctioned loan of Rs.40 lakhs in favour of the petitioner sometime in May 1996 for construction of building complex in premises bearing No.6-2-101/2, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. After about four years, the petitioner gave two cheques to the bank, but the same were not honoured. Consequently, the bank filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the 1881 Act’) in the Court of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The same were registered as C.C.Nos.97 and 98 of 2000. Simultaneously, the bank filed an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the 1993 Act’) for recovery of the amount of loan together with interest by alleging that the petitioner has failed to repay the loan as per the terms of sanction. The same was registered as O.A.No.236 of 2000. During the pendency of the original application filed by the bank, three sureties of the loan filed I.A.No.585 of 2004 under Section 22 read with Section 21 (b) of the 1993 Act for attachment of the 5th floor of the building constructed by the petitioner. They alleged that the bank and the petitioner have colluded to deprive them their properties. By an order, the Tribunal allowed the application and attached the 5th floor of the building and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take possession. After sometime, an application was filed by respondent No.4 – M/s.TGV Projects and Investments Private Limited for its impleadment as party to O.A.No.236 of 2000. In the writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the alleged failure of the Tribunal to decide I.A.No.940 of 2005 filed on behalf of respondent No.4 by asserting that delay in the disposal of I.A.No.940 of 2005 and O.A.No.236 of 2000 is causing serious injury to its interest, which has been arrayed as accused in the complaints filed by the bank under Section 138 of the 1881 Act. Shri Venu Gopal made efforts to impress upon us that delay in the disposal of I.A.No.940 of 2005 and O.A.No.236 of 2000 is attributable to the Ex-Director of respondent No.2 bank who is interested in taking the multi-storied building constructed by the petitioner, but we have not felt impressed because, (i) the Ex-Director of respondent No.2 bank who is said to have filed I.A.No.940 of 2005 has not been impleaded as a party to the writ petition and without issuing notice and giving him an opportunity of hearing, this Court cannot record a finding that he has filed I.A.No.940 of 2005 with an oblique motive and is deliberately delaying the proceedings of the main application pending before the Tribunal, (ii) the petitioner has not produced any material on the record of the writ petition to prima facie show that delay in the disposal of the Original Application and the miscellaneous petition is attributable to the bank and/or its Ex-Director. We are further of the view that there is no legal basis or justification for this Court’s interdiction with the proceedings instituted by the bank under Section 138 of the 1881 Act. The question whether the petitioner has committed offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the 1881 Act is to be determined by the concerned Court and there is no extraordinary reason for intermediary judicial intervention by this Court with the process initiated by respondent No.2 bank. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.28254 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27.10.2006 ksld