HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 29217 OF 2010 Between: M. Bhaskaram S/o M. V. Chalapathi ………….Petitioner AND M/s Dena Bank ………….Respondent ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Challenging the action of the respondent in trying to interfering with the property under the guise of exercising powers under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short “ the SRFAESI Act”)the present Writ Petition is filed. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 9.3.2005 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- without knowing the facts that the property was mortgaged to the bank. Therefore, the bank has issued a notice dated 26.11.2009 exercising powers under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act r/w Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules calling upon one Tammineni Venkateswara Rao S/o T. Prabhakar rao to clear of the dues of a sum of Rs. 18,70,800/- along with interest within sixty days and asking the petitioner to vacate the premises and handover the possession to them. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the entire material made available on record. Without going into the merits or otherwise of the matter this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed inasmuch as under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act, any aggrieved person can file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Section 17 of the Act reads as under: “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 percent 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 s 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.” Be that as it may, the Supreme Court also 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.” In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the above observation of the Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No. 10145 of 2010, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR , J DATE: 29.11.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.