IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 3715 of 2009 Between: 1 State Bank of India, AFA Township Branch Dindigal, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Branch Manager 2 State Bank of India, AFA Township Branch Dindigal, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Under SARFAESI Act. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Debts Recovery, Tribunal, Hyderabad Rep. by its Registrar, 5t Floor, Place Heights Building Triveni Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondent in receiving the Caveat Application filed by the Petitioners and lodging the same as illegal, and against to the principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law and Consequentially to direct the Respondent Tribunal to receive the said Caveat Application and to number the same and to pass such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent : . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 3715 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J) 1. The grievance of petitioners-bank in this writ petition is that they have filed a caveat petition under Section 148- A of the Code of Civil Procedure before respondent-Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, but it is not being received by the Tribunal. They contend that several borrowers and guarantors, jointly or individually, or through third parties are approaching the respondent-Tribunal by filing securitisation applications and obtaining exparte stay orders, as a result, the petitioners-bank are being put to serious hardship and they could not proceed further for recovery of the amounts till the stay order is eventually vacated. The petitioners-bank, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, have given instances of such exparte stay orders being obtained by borrowers and guarantors from the respondent-Tribunal. Apprehending that a similar exparte stay order would be passed by respondent-Tribunal, the petitioners-bank filed a caveat petition before the Tribunal so as to ensure that no exparte order is passed and they would be heard before passing any order. The complaint of the petitioners is that the Registry of the respondent-Tribunal is not receiving the caveat petition on the ground that Section 148-A of CPC has no application. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and we have also seen Section 22 (1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 which provides as follows, “22. Procedure and powers of the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal,- (1) The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have powers to regulate their own procedure including the places at which they shall have their sittings.” 3. It is evident that the Tribunal shall follow the principles of natural justice and filing of caveat petition would only ensure that the principles of natural justice are complied with and the petitioners are heard before the Tribunal passes any order. We, therefore, do not think as if that the Tribunal has no power to accept the caveat petition and in fact, the same would be in furtherance of ensuring principles of natural justice and no prejudice would be caused to other side if the caveat petition is accepted. The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as well as Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 are enacted for the purpose of ensuring speedy recovery of the amounts by the banks and financial institutions and if such banks and institutions come forward in advance by accepting notice of any such proceedings being filed by the borrowers or guarantors or third parties, there is no reason why the respondent-Tribunal should not entertain the caveat petition filed on their behalf. 4. We, therefore, direct the respondent-Tribunal to accept the caveat petition filed by the petitioners-bank, register the same and deal with the same in accordance with the principles enunciated under Section 148-A of Code of Civil Procedure. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. However, no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt.26.2.2009 KR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The by its Registrar, Debts Recovery, Tribunal, Hyderabad Rep. 5t Floor, Place Heights Building Triveni Complex, Abids, Hyderabad 2. CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}