IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3698 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3698 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3698 OF 2008 M/s.MRB Roadconst Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioners. V/s. Rupee Co-operative Bank Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for petitioners. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 13TH JUNE, 2008. DATED : 13TH JUNE, 2008. DATED : 13TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. The short question raised in this Writ Petition is, whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal were justified in permitting the respondent Bank to sell the property belonging to Shri Malkani, Director and guarantor of the petitioner company. 2. The petitioners who had taken loan of Rs.75 lakhs had defaulted in repayment and had applied to the bank seeking one time settlement. During the pendency of the said application, the bank applied to the Debt Recovery Tribunal and by an order dated 9/2/2008, the D.R.T. permitted the bank to sell the property belonging to Shri Malkani, - = : 2 : = - guarantor. On appeal, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere with the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Accordingly, the property belonging to Shri Malkani have been sold. Challenging the above order of D.R.T. and D.R.A.T. the present petition is filed. 3. The main grievance of the petitioners is that, whether the dispute is maintainable under the Securitisation Act is a question which is pending before the Apex Court and during the pendency of the said dispute, the D.R.T. could not have ordered sale of the properties in question. It is further contended that although Shri Malkani has stood as guarantor to the petitioner company in securing the loan from the respondent bank, the property sought to be sold belongs to the company and even if it is held that the said property belongs to Shri Malkani, the sale of the said property for a meagre amount would seriously prejudice the petitioners. 4. From the impugned order as well as the petition, it is seen that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners are the owner of the property which is sought to be sold by the respondent bank. Shri Malkani, the Director, who stood as guarantor in securing loan to the - = : 3 : = - petitioner Company has consented for the sale of the property. As the petitioners do not have any document to establish their title in respect of the property sought to be sold by the respondent bank, the order passed by the authorities below cannot be faulted. 5. In this view of the matter, I see no merit in the petition. Writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)