SM 1 903.wp.6788.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6788 OF 2011 Shri. Vasant Vinayak Ambekar ....Petitioner Versus State Bank of India ....Respondent ____________ Mr. Prakash Ganwani i/b Ms. Poonam Utekar for the Petitioner. Mr. Atul G. Damle with Mr. Lalitkumar Jain for the Respondent. CORAM: DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, J.J. DATED : AUGUST 29, 2011. P.C.: This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is instituted in order to challenge an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, by which the Respondent was directed not to take physical possession of the secured asset for a period of three weeks conditional on the Petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) within the aforesaid period. In the event of failure of compliance, the Bank was permitted to take steps for recovery of its debts under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has moved these proceedings since there is a vacancy in the office of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai. However, this Court has been informed that arrangements have been made by the Union Government pursuant to which the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal SM 2 903.wp.6788.11 at Kolkata has to hold concurrent charge of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition since the Petitioner has an alternate remedy. However, during the course of the hearing, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner informed the Court that the Petitioner accepts the impugned order for deposit of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs), but only seeks an extension of time to effect deposit by a period of four weeks from today. The request which has been made on behalf of the Petitioner has not been opposed to by the Respondent. 3. In the circumstances, we dispose of the Petition in terms of the following order: (i) Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has stated before the Court that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioner in the pending application under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the Petitioner would within a period of three weeks from today deposit an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) with the Respondent; (ii) Of the aforesaid amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs), an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousands) shall be deposited on or before 8 September 2011, while the balance shall be deposited on or before 19 September 2011; (iii) In the event that the Petitioner fails to deposit the SM 3 903.wp.6788.11 aforesaid amount or any part thereof in accordance with the time schedule laid down by the Court, the Respondent would be at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law. 4. We clarify that, save and except for the modification in respect of the time schedule for effecting deposit, we are not interfering with the directions issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the consequences set out for breach of compliance. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. 5. On the request of Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, it is recorded that the Petitioner is personally present in the Court and has furnished instructions to his Advocate to make a statement as recorded in the earlier part of this order. (A. A. SAYED, J.) (DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)