IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :7997 of 2010 Between: M/s.Bakran Beedi Works represented by its Managing Partner ..... PETITIONER AND The Canara Bank, Adarsh Nagar Branch, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :7997 of 2010 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the proceedings initiated by the respondent under section 13 (2) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the petitioner and its guarantors vide Ref.No:OB/Hyd/Lpd/09-10, dated 15.2.2010 as arbitrary and illegal. The facts stated are that the respondent-Bank filed a claim petition before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for A.P and Karnataka at Bangalore on 11.7.1996 for recovery of a sum of Rs.34,83,024 together with interest at 25% p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of application till realization and the said O.A was registered in the year 2003 being O.A.35 of 2003. It is stated that pending the said O.A., the respondent-Bank has chosen to resort to initiating the proceedings under section 13 (2) of the Act without disclosing the details of the documents. Therefore, the said proceedings are liable to be set aside. Heard the learned counsel on either side. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner-firm has availed the loan on 4.9.1993 and the O.A is filed in the year 2003 as O.A.35 of 2003 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. Therefore, the claim under section 13 (2) of the Act, without furnishing details of documents, is barred by limitation. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to the provision of section 36 of the Act, which reads as under: “No secured creditor shall be entitled to take all or any of the measures under sub section (4) of section 13, unless his claim in respect of the financial asset is made within a period of limitation under the Limitation Act 1963.” To substantiate the said contention, he has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.M. BAXI & CO. GUJARAT VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW KANDLA & ANOTHER ([1]) wherein it has been observed thus: “Normally, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 when adequate alternative remedy is available but in the special facts of this case when the demand was raised and the same had been challenged on the ground that it was barred by time and where the demand is nearly of 46 lakhs which will have to be deposited before any appeal can be filed, We are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction and determined the questions which were raised in the writ petition on merits. In dealing with the contentions raised by the appellant, the High Court would necessarily have to consider the contentions of the respondents as well.” The respondent-bank has issued notice under section 13 (2) of the Act and in response to the same, the petitioner has raised the objections on 17.3.2010. For the said objections, the respondent- bank has given a reply on 23.3.2010 under section 13 (3) (A) of the Act. It is settled proposition of law that pendency of proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not a bar to initiate the proceedings under the Act. In the instant case, no orders have been passed under section 13 (4) of the Act after the issuance of notice under section 13 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the approach of the petitioner is a premature one. Even assuming that the order under section 13 (4) of the Act is passed, the remedy that is available to the petitioner, is only by way of an appeal before the tribunal. In the circumstances, We do not find any merits in this writ petition and consequently, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed _____________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Dated:14th June, 2010 Gurc. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 7997 of 2010 (Order of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 14.06.2010 [1] 2001 (9) SUPREME COURT CASES 275