IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.25311 OF 2009 Between: M/s.Asha Luxury Theatre. … Petitioner And Indian Bank, represented by its Manager, Tenali. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.25311 OF 2009 ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Petitioner who is appointed as a receiver in A.S.M.P.Nos.2587 of 2006 and 2588 of 2006 in A.S.No.12 of 2006 to manage the property belongs to M/s.Asha Luxury Theatre, filed this wit petition challenging the sale notice issued by the respondent bank by invoking the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, “the Act”) for due recovery of the amounts due by the firm, contending that the action of the respondent in proceeding to conduct auction inviting tenders on 25.11.2009 is arbitrary and illegal and the bank should be restrained from sale of the said properties. The respondent bank filed O.A.No.796 of 2002 against the firm and its partners for due recovery of the loan borrowed by them, which was decreed on 09.02.2009, against which some of the partners filed appeal in S.A.No.12 of 2009 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai and along with the said appeal, they filed I.A.No.808 of 2009 for waiver of the deposit of 75% of the decreetal amount and also I.A.No.824 of 2009 for interim stay of operation of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.796 of 2002 and when the same is pending, the above sale notice has been issued. The leaned counsel for the respondent-bank on instructions contended that against the issuance of the notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act one of the partners filed an appeal and the same was dismissed. Against the orders passed by the Tribunal and against issuance of notice, some of the partners also moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal to stay the sale, which is posted to today. In view of the same, the petitioner-receiver will not have any independent right than that of the partners of the firm to question the recovery proceedings. When the petitioner-3rd party to the proceedings, who claim rights over the property, which was attached for due recovery of debt by the bank, where the Recovery Officer issued sale proclamation, can file his objections to the attachment or sale of any property in execution of the certificate. On dismissal of the claim petition by the authorised officer to issue the sale certificate, he can prefer an appeal as provided under Section 30 of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, “the Act”), not withstanding the provisions of Section 29 of the Act. If they are aggrieved by the rejection of the claim may also institute a suit as per sub-rule 6 of Rule 11 of Second Schedule to Income-tax Act, 1961, which is made applicable to all such sales and shall be their right in the suit schedule property. In view of the alternative remedies available to the petitioner, the present writ petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (A.GOPALA REDDY, J) _________________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J) 24th November 2009. LMV