THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR DATED: 30-11-2010 WRIT PETITION No. 29913 OF 2010 Between: Ramchandra Row Tirumala and three others ..... PETITIONERS AND Authorised Officer, Standard Chartered Bank, 501 & 502, Ashok Bhopal Chamber, Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad – 500003, A.P .....RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 29913 OF 2010 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the notice dated 17-11-2010 issued by the respondent Bank under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) as arbitrary and illegal. The first petitioner has obtained loan to a tune of Rs. 24,00,000/- from the respondent – Bank and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 stood as guarantors. He committed default in payment of the same. The Bank has therefore issued notice dated 13-09-2009 under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act calling upon him to pay Rs.27,51,456.38 together with future interest within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. It is the case of the petitioners that they approached the Bank to reschedule the loan account pursuant to the notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, but the Bank has refused for the same and issued notice dated 17-11-2010 under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. The writ petition is misconceived inasmuch as under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, any person aggrieved by the measures taken under Section 13 (4) may prefer an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act reads as under: “17. Right to appeal:- (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may prefer an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken. (2) Where an appeal is preferred by a borrower, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Debts Recovery Tribunal unless the borrower has deposited with the Debts Recovery Tribunal seventy five per cent of the amount claimed in the notice referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 13: Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section. (3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and rules made thereunder.” Further, the Supreme Court in in SLP (C) No. 10145 of 2010 dated 26th July 2010 observed as under: “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 SARFAESI 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.” In view of availability of efficacious alternative remedy of appeal to the petitioner, we do not see any reason to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, since it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad is not functioning and the Incharge Presiding Officer is functioning only for two days in a fortnight and the Bank is trying to dispossess the petitioners from the premises in question, we deem it appropriate to grant six weeks time to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and till such time, the respondent – Bank shall not take any coercive steps. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J N. RAVI SHAKNAR, J 30-11-2010 ks Note: Furnish copy by tomorrow. B/O ks