HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 16063 OF 2010. DATED 9T H AUGUST, 2010. BETWEEN Jalaram Industries A partnership firm, Shardhanand Gunj, Nizamabad, Rep. By its Managing Partner Mr. Amritlal …..Petitioner and M.A.Kareem and ors …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 16063 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 27.4.2010 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in T.A.No. 9 of 2010 in S.A.No. 168 of 2007, this Writ Petition is filed. The petitioner is a partnership ﬁrm engaged in the business of trading of turmeric and pulses at Nizamabad, along with its sister concerns and availed certain credit facilities from the fourth respondent- Bank. As the petitioner was irregular in repayment, the fourth respondent-bank recalled certain facilities. Questioning the same the petitioner ﬁled an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and it is stated that the same is pending consideration. During the pendency of the aforesaid application, fourth respondent-bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 ( for short’ the Act’) demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,23,23,368.50 within a period of 60 days. Thereafter on 11.8.2006 the fourth respondent-Bank issued a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act and on 26.5.2007 it issued a public auction notice. It is the case of the petitioner that it approached the fourth respondent-bank to settle the account for an amount of Rs.175 lakhs under OTS and the same resulted in vain. Thereafter, the fourth respondent-Bank issued tender cum auction sale notice dated 17.9.2007. Questioning the auction conducted by the fourth respondent-bank, the petitioner ﬁled S.A.No. 168 of 2007 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad seeking certain reliefs. By an order dated 2.11.2007, the Debts Recovery Tribunal directed the fourth respondent-bank not to conﬁrm the sale and not to issue sale certiﬁcate to the successful bidder. Pursuant to the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 23564 of 2007, dated 2.11.2007, the respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are the auction purchasers, ﬁled I.A.No. 63 of 2008 in the aforesaid SA seeking to implead them as parties to the said SA and the same was allowed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Thereafter, Tr.C.M.P.No. 357 of 2008 was ﬁled by the respondents 1 to 3 before this Court seeking transfer of the SA before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and this Court disposed of the same by an order dated 31.3.2009 directing the respondents to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. Pursuant to the same, the respondents 1 to 3 ﬁled TA (MA)SA.No. 9 of 2010 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal seeking transfer of SA.No. 168 of 2007 from Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai passed an order dated 27.4.2010 directing that S.A.No. 168 of 2007 be transferred from the ﬁle of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad to Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that none of the grounds mentioned in the transfer application supported by cogent reasons so as to transfer the SA from the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad to the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chennai. The respondents 1 to 3 have not make out any grounds to transfer the said SA and therefore the order transferring the SA from Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 would contend that as there were some allegations against the present Presiding Oﬃcer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad, they sought transfer of the matter to Chennai. It is further stated that now the Presiding Oﬃcer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, at Hyderabad is under suspension and the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal is given In-charge of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, and he is visiting Hyderabad twice in a month. Heard both sides at length. We have gone through the entire material on record. In view of the fact that the present Presiding Oﬃcer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad is under suspension, and as the Presiding Oﬃcer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai is given in- charge of the DRT at Hyderabad and he is visiting Hyderabad twice in a month, there is a chance of causing delay in disposal of the matter and the same may result in some hectic situation between the parties to the lis. Further, the parties have expressed their willingness that there are no objections for transfer of the matter from the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. However, both the parties requested to direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai to dispose of the matter at an early date. In view of the above, there is no need to probe in into the matter any further. However, having regard to the said request of the learned Counsel on either side and considering the facts and circumstances of the case,the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai is directed to consider and dispose of the S.A.No. 168 of 2007 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ------------------------------------------------------ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED -------------------------------------------- JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH DATED 09TH AUGUST, 2010. Msnr.