THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.6870 of 2010 26-04-2010 BETWEEN; Sriram Kalyani wife of Late Purushotham ...Petitioner vs. The State Bank of Hyderabad, Wanrangal Branch ...Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.6870 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) Heard Sri Kasa Jagnmohan Reddy the learned counsel for th petitioner and Ms. Ch.Lakshmi Chaya, representing S A.Satyanarayana, the learned standing counsel for the respondent-Bank. The writ petition is filed challenging the notice dated 03-03-2010 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 for short “ the Rules”). The petitioner pleads that her deceased husban during his life time pursued a rice milling business under the name an style of M/s. Sri Raja Rajeswari Industries and obtained financia assistance from the respondent/ a secured creditor to a tune of Rs.17 lakh which is required to be repaid in 15 years on quarterly instalments o Rs.46,500/-, under a loan agreement dated 14-09-2007. The immovabl property on which the rice mill is situate and the plant and machinery wer therein mortgaged/hypothecated to secure the loan. On the demise of he husband on 13-04-2008, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 10-06 2008 requesting the secured creditor to sell the rice mill and realise th dues from the sale proceeds. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed anothe letter recalling her earlier letter and resiling from the same. The secure creditor filed O.A.No.141 of 2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribuna Hyderabad (the Tribunal) seeking attachment of the secured propertie under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act,1993. Under a direction of the Tribunal, the secured creditor seized th stocks of paddy lying in the rice mill, which according to the petitioner, ar of a quantity of 1000 quintals worth of Rs.27 lakhs. The petitioner furthe asserts that the secured creditor failed in many attempts to dispose of th seized stock of paddy by public auction on account of non-responsiv bids. The paddy continues to lie in the custody of the secured creditor an is deteriorating in quality on account of efflux of time. The petitioner asserts and that is the singular assertion, that th initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation an Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interes Act,2002 ( for short “ the 2002 Act”), while proceedings under the Recover of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,1993 in O.A.No.14 of 2008 are pending before the Tribunal, constitutes arbitrary and illega conduct on the part of the secured creditor particularly when it has failed t dispose of the huge quantity of paddy, which had been seized an retained in the possession of the secured creditor, pursuant to the interim orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.141 of 2008. In the affidavit, the secured creditor disputes the value of the padd seized. According to the respondent, the Tribunal appointed an Advocat Commissioner for taking possession of the hypothecated paddy and to se the same as per the inventory. There were 629 bags of first quality an 209 bags of second quality paddy (each weighing 65 kgs) in the premise of M/s.Sri Raja Rajeswari Industries. The Advocate Commissioner coul not execute the warrant and thereupon the Tribunal passed further order appointing the Branch Manager of the bank as a Commissioner to tak possession and sell the paddy stocks. In view of these orders, the ban officer took possession of the stocks of paddy and pursued sale of th paddy stocks on two occasions. However, there was no adequat response. The bank thereupon approached the DRT seeking permissio to shift the hypothecated paddy to the Agricultural Market Committee Kesamudram for ensuring sale of the same to the FCI directly. On suc application, the Tribunal by an order dated 08-04-2010 permitted th secured creditor to sell the hypothecated paddy to the FCI directly. Th respondents, in this affidavit dated 16-04-2010, clearly and categoricall asserts that the total value of the paddy, as per the valuation given by th Special Grade Secretary, AMC, Kesamudram dated 10-07-2009, is abou Rs.7,51,829/- and not, as contended by the petitioner Rs.27 lakhs. The only question falling for our consideration in this writ petition is a to the validity of the possession notice issued by the respondent-ban under Rule 8(1) of the 2002 Rules. The possession notice is a proces falling within the contours of Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act. Th conceptual challenge by the petitioner to the proceedings initiated unde the 2002 Act as appears from the rather open textured pleadings, is tha the respondent-secured creditor is disabled from simultaneousl proceeding both under the provisions of the 1993 and the 2002 Acts. Thi contention is stated to be rejected. As held by the Supreme Court i Transcore Vs. Union of India[1] the remedies available to the secure creditor under the provisions of the 2002 Act are in addition to and not i derogation of other remedies available which includes the processe under the provisions of the 1993 Act. That the petitioner’s husband and thereafter the petitioner hav defaulted on the instalments of the loan and in terms of the loan agreemen to the respondent-Bank is an undisputed fact. As a consequence of suc default, the loan account has been classified as NPA by the respondents Initially the bank proceeded under the provisions of the 1993 Act by way o an O.A before the DRT, Hyderabad and thereafter and midway it ha changed course and initiated proceedings under the provisions of th 2002 Act, a course of conduct legitimately available to the secured credito in view of the law declared in Transcore (supra). Whether the valuation o the paddy is Rs.27 lakhs as contended by the petitioner or Rs.7.50 lakh as contended by the secured creditor is a disputed question of fact whic does not fall to be considered in this writ petition, where the challenge i singularly and exclusively to the validity of proceedings initiated unde Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act. The grievance of the petitioner with regar to the alleged negligent conduct of the secured creditor in failing t dispose of the seized stock of paddy, is more appropriately addresse before the appellate forum, namely the appropriate DRT having jurisdictio over the matter, in an appeal under Section 17 of the 2002 Act. On the analyses above, this court discerns no patent jurisdictiona infirmity in the action of the respondent-bank in issuing the possessio notice, in exercise of its powers under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act. Ther are no merits. Other grievances of the petitioner may be addressed, if s desired, in appellate proceedings. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ NOUSHAD ALI,J 26th APRIL 2010. TSNR [1] 2008(1) SCC 125