IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.25005 OF 2009 Between: T.Krupamani and another. … Petitioners And The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhpatnam, represented by its Presiding Officer and two others. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.25005 OF 2009 ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Petitioners/borrowers filed this writ petition for issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhpatnam dated 22.10.2009 in I.A.No.514 of 2009 in S.A.No.135 of 2009 staying the sale notice dated 04.04.2008 issued by 2nd respondent, on condition of petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within one month from the date of order and to quash the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also Sri S.Surya Prakasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Bank. Petitioners having availed various loans in the O.D.limits of Rs.6 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs for running M/s.Sree Bala Durga Enterprises and Rs.14 lakhs towards working capital to run M/s.Sri Bala Durga Manufacturing of House Hold Wood Furniture Making Unit, committed default in repayment of the same and hence 3rd respondent- bank issued demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, “the Act”) for all the three accounts. It is submitted that for the account covered by the present writ petition i.e., S.A.No.135 of 2009, the demand notice issued was for an amount of Rs.6,41,980/-. Petitioners assert that after receipt of the demand notice, they have paid an amount of Rs.3,21,000/- and only a sum of Rs.3,51,298/- is outstanding as on 20.06.2009. Therefore, imposition of a condition by the Tribunal below to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs more than the amount due, is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel for the respondent bank fairly conceded about payment of Rs.3,21,000/- after issuance of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. But, further interest from 26.11.2007 in addition to the expenses incurred by the respondent bank for the proceedings under the Act, was also due by the petitioners. In the circumstances, we are of the view that for staying the operation of the impugned notice, deposit of half of the amount due will be sufficient. In view of the same, on petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by the end of December, 2009, there shall be stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the sale notice dated 04.04.2008. The interim order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in I.A.No.514 of 2009 in S.A.No.135 of 2009 is accordingly modified, as referred to supra. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J) _________________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J) 24.11.2009. Note: C.C. by one week. (B/o) lmv