THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.15087 OF 2010 O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Heard both the counsel. 2. One Suresh Babu is the borrower of the respondent – Bank to a tune of Rs.25,00,000/- and the petitioner – Smt. Dammalapati Raga Jyothi, is the guarantor for the said amount and she deposited her title deeds in respect of her vacant site of 60 cents in Sy.No.187 at Podili, Prakasam District. As the borrower failed to make the payment, the respondent – Bank issued notice on 7.1.2010 under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for taking possession of the property of the petitioner. On the ground that the Bank is proceeding in a hasty manner to sell the property of the petitioner, though the principal borrower is taking all steps to settle the debt, she filed S.A.No.10 of 2010 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and she also filed I.A.No.19/2010 in the said S.A., seeking stay of the proceedings issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. On the said I.A., the Tribunal granted time till 1.2.2010, subject to depositing of Rs.1,00,000/- and accordingly the petitioner deposited the amount. On 11.3.2010, the Tribunal again passed orders in I.A.No.19/2010 to settle the debt within one month and in case of default, gave liberty to the Bank to proceed under the Act. As the debt could not be settled, the Bank issued publication in Enadu on 13.4.2010 inviting sealed tenders. Challenging the said publication, the petitioner filed another S.A.No.102/2010 and she filed I.A.No.298/2010 in the said I.A., seeking stay of auction notice. The Tribunal granted stay by order dated 27.4.2010, subject to deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- on or before 13.5.2010 and the said amount was deposited on 8.5.2010 within the time granted by the Tribunal. The matter was again taken up by the Tribunal on 17.5.2010 and interim orders were passed directing the pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- on or before 31.5.2010 failing which the Bank was given liberty to take steps. As the request of the petitioner to grant time till 30.6.2010 to deposit the amount was not considered, she filed writ petition before this court in W.P.No.11899/2010. This court disposed of the said writ petition on 1.6.2010 and granted time till 30.6.2010. Though the order was communicated by telegraphic communication by 4.00 p.m. on the same day, the Bank has received an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- from the highest bidder in the auction and subsequently received the total bid amount of Rs.43,03,000/- by 11.6.2010. 3. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that though this court has granted time till 30.6.2010, the respondent – Bank without complying with the directions of this court, opened the sealed tender of the highest bidder and accepted the same. Her further grievance is that though the value of the property will not be less than Rs.70,00,000/-, which is as per the basic value register of Sub Registrar, Podili, the respondent – Bank has accepted the tender for an amount of Rs.43,03,000/-, therefore, she is put to irreparable loss. As the details of the highest bidder were not furnished to her, he could not implead him in this writ petition. With these averments, the action of the respondent – Bank in finalizing the tenders in favour of the highest bidder, is sought to be set aside. 4. The respondent – Bank filed counter affidavit and while denying the writ averments and narrating the facts, stated that the order passed by this court on 1.6.2010 in W.P.No.11899/2010, was received by the Bank on 2.6.2010 at 11.00 a.m. and since the petitioner failed to comply the conditional interim orders of the Tribunal dated 17.5.2010 passed in I.A.No.298/2010 in S.A.No.102/2010, the sealed tendes were opened and finalized in favour of the highest bidder. As the original borrower became defaulter and since the petitioner being the guarantor, the Bank has taken steps in accordance with law. With these averments inter alia, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, as the matter is seized by the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that without going into the merits of the case, it is expedient to direct the Tribunal to dispose of S.A.Nos. 10 and 102 of 2010, in accordance with law. As the higher bidder has already deposited the entire sale amount, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an implead petition before the Tribunal impleading the highest bidder in the auction held pursuant to the publication in Eendadu daily dated 13.4.2010 and whereupon the Tribunal after giving opportunity to the said auction purchaser, may pass appropriate orders. 6. wE dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam shall dispose of S.A.Nos.10 and 102 of 2010, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, the sale of the subject property, shall not be finalized.” 7. No order as to costs. ------------------------------------ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J --------------------------------------- G.CHANDRAIAH,J DATE:20.07.2010 AVS