IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO:30827 OF 2010 DATED: 29.12.2010 Between: M/s.Calibre Advertisers Pvt. Ltd. ..... PETITIONER AND Indian Bank .....RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.30827 OF 2010 ORDER:: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent-bank as being illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary and consequently to set aside the sale dated 20-11-2010 pertaining to the properties of the petitioner by the respondent-bank in the interest of justice. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing of the respondent-bank. 3. The petitioner is borrower and obtained loan for developing her business by mortgaging the properties in question as security. It is stated that the petitioner failed to repay the loan amount availed from the respondent- bank and therefore the respondent-bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and brought the property in question of the petitioner to sale following the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. It is stated that against the sale proceedings, the petitioner availed appeal remedy by filing appeal being SA No.336 of 2009 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, but the said SA was dismissed. Thereafter, it appears the petitioner made representations to the respondent-bank and the respondent-bank has accepted to settle the dues of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.150 lakhs on certain terms and conditions contained in the said letter of sanction of OTS dated 15-11-2010. It is stated that the petitioner failed to fulfil the terms of the said OTS and failed to deposit 10% of the offer amount by 17- 11-2010. It is stated that under these circumstances, the respondent-bank proceeded to conduct the sale of the property in question on 20-11-2010 and the property in question was sold in public auction and the successful bidder deposited 25% of the bid amount and a letter of confirmation was also issued to the said auction purchaser to deposit the balance of 75% of the bid amount. Be that as it may, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (c ) No. 10145 of 2010, dated 26th July 2010 at paragraph 27 of the judgment observed as under: “27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SRFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” 4. Inasmuch as the petitioner failed to comply the terms of the OTS and also his statutory appeal filed was also dismissed on merits, we do not find any ground to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 29th December, 2010. Nrg