HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM £--. J5 HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. Writ Petition (C) No. 6180 OF 2006 APPELLANT/ PETITIONER Shri Pavan Singh Thakur S/o Shri Girwal Singh Aged about 27 years, R/o V.I.P. Road, KhaniJ Nagar, Tehsil & Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh Versus State Bank of India, Phaphadih Branch, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Through Authorized Officer cum Manager Present: Shri Abhijit C Thakur, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10-11-2008) The following oral order of the Court was passed by S.R. Nayak, CJ. This writ petition is directed against the refusal of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short "the DRT"), Jabalpur to grant ad-interim injunction sought by the petitioner herein in an application filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Fmancial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act"). The foilowing is She reason stated by the DRT to refuse ad-interim injunction: "Having heard the Ld. Counsel for applicant and after going through the records it appears that bank has taken possession u/s 13(4) of Securitisation Act in July/August 2005. As per Section 17 of Securitisation Act, application is to be filed within 45 days from the date of measures taken u/s 13(4) of Securitisation Act. Shri Thakur has submitted that delay may be condoned. The applicant has filed instant application •A- on 16-10-06 whereas auction is scheduled for 18-10- 2006. It wfll not be out of piace to mention here that alleged agreement of construction of house is between fte applicant and the Buildet- and the Bank is not the party to the safd agreement. More so amount cannot be disbursed to the builder without the consent/authority of the applicant, therefore, contention of applicant that bank has disbursed arnount in connivance with the byilder cannot be prima facie arcepted. The cancelfation of Registration of Sakhari Samiti has nothing to do with the repayment of loan taken by the applicant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find strong prima facie case to grant exparte ad interim relief, therefore, prayer is rejected". Furthermore, we are told that as proposedthe auction was conducted on 18-10-2006. The discretion exercised by the DRT could not be condemned as arbitrary or unreasonable. In the facts and cireumstances of the case, no case is made out to interfere with the djscretion exercised by the DRT. The writ petition is devoid of merit and ^^-^_- it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge ?Al^ iIiBl'T