1 W.P. No.11537 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.11537 of 2010 M/s. Yuvraj Udyog, through its Proprietor Rajendra Brijlal Mundada. .. Petitioner. Versus The Authorised Officer Union Bank of India Regional Office 1411-C, Maya Chambers, Kolhapur And Another. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate, holding for Shri. Arvind R. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. V.I. Thole, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. V.D. Gunale and Shri. D.S. Mali, Advocates, for intervener - applicant in CA No.11591 of 2011. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE 17th NOVEMBER 2011 ORAL ORDER (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.): 1) The petition is filed to challenge the order dated 8-12-2010 of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal made in M.A. No.939 of 2010 in Appeal No.250 of 2010. The Appellate Authority had imposed condition for 2 W.P. No.11537 of 2010 admission of appeal that the appellant should deposit 50% of the amount due to the creditor bank i.e. Rs.75,00,000/-. This order was challenged and order of status quo was passed by this Court in terms of prayer clause (C) and the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the property viz. Plot No.C-21, MIDC, Latur. As the petitioner did not deposit the amount directed by the Appellate Authority, the appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 26-4-2011. After dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No.11537 of 2010 came to be filed and prayer came to be made to allow the petitioner to challenge the order of dismissal itself. Both the sides are heard. Advocate Shri. D.S. Mali appears for intervenor -auction purchaser and he is also heard. 2) The order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 20-8-2010 was challenged by filing appeal. In view of provisions of Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Appellate Authority had directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount due for admission of the appeal. This amount was around Rs. 3 W.P. No.11537 of 2010 75,00,000/-. This order came to be challenged in the present proceedings which was filed on 18-12-2010. This Court did not grant stay to the order to deposit 50% amount but interim relief was granted to maintain status quo in respect of the property of the petitioner. The property was already in possession of the bank. As the condition of deposit of 50% was not complied with, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. 3) By making amendment in the present writ petition, it was submitted by the petitioner that opportunity can be given to the appellant to contest the appeal on merits. It was submitted that the appellant is ready to deposit the amount which was due, with the Appellate Authority and the property of the appellant can be protected. It was submitted that, appellant may get amount of Rs.1.25 crores by sale of the property when in the auction sale held by the bank the intervener purchased the property for Rs. one crore. 4) The appeal was filed to challenge the action of taking possession by the bank. There is no dispute about 4 W.P. No.11537 of 2010 the amount which was due to the bank. In view of the circumstances and as the sale certificate had been already issued, nothing can be achieved by the petitioner if the appeal is restored. 5) The Advocate of the respondents brought to the notice of this Court some circumstances. It was informed that, the second auction sale was conducted on 10-11-2010 and the petition to challenge the order of the Appellate Authority was filed on 18-12-2010. Interim order was passed by this Court in respect of the property on 22-12-2010 when the sale in favour of the auction purchaser was confirmed on 7-12-2010. In view of these circumstances also this Court holds that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 6) The writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl