VBC 1 wp6750.11-26.9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6750 OF 2011 Mr.Tanaji Shankar Deshmukh & Anr. ...Petitioners. Vs. Union Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Ms.Geeta P.Mulekar for the Petitioners. Ms.N.I.Bakali for Respondent No.1. Ms.Aparna D.Vhatkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ..... CORAM : .D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. September 26, 2011. P.C. : The First Respondent had issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, to the Petitioners on 6 June 2006 in respect of a term loan granted in the amount of Rs.9 lakhs. The amount claimed in the notice is Rs.9,79,243/-. Thereafter, the First Respondent moved the District Magistrate at VBC 2 wp6750.11-26.9 Pune for an order under Section 14 which has been passed on 9 August 2010. During the course of the hearing of these proceedings, Counsel appearing on behalf of the First Respondent has placed on record an affidavit dated 17 September 2011 in which the position as of 29 August 2011 has been stated in respect of the outstanding dues. In pursuance of an order dated 25 August 2011, passed by this Court, the Petitioners have already deposited an amount of Rs.6.60 lakhs with the First Respondent. After giving due credit for the aforesaid amount, an amount of Rs.5,48,013/- is stated to be due and payable under the Housing loan facility. In addition, the Petitioners had availed of a comfort loan and an overdraft loan in respect of which respectively the outstanding dues are Rs.1,97,296/- and Rs.3,33,110/-. The security interest has however been created, the Court has been informed, only in respect of the Housing loan and not in respect of the comfort loan or overdraft loan. 2. Since the Petitioners have now deposited a substantial amount, namely, Rs.6.60 lakhs during the pendency of the proceedings, we are of the view that while the Petitioners should VBC 3 wp6750.11-26.9 be relegated to pursuing the remedy under Section 17 of the Act before the DRT, some interim protection should be granted. The First Respondent has in its affidavit in reply annexed a copy of the statement of account. According to the First Respondent, the statement of account would show that the account in question for the housing loan became non-performing asset on 26 March 2011 after which no interest has been debited to the account. Hence, it has been stated that the total amount which is due and payable to the First Respondent on account of Housing Loan, after taking into account the unrecovered interest is Rs.5,48,013/- as of 29 August 2011. 3. We accordingly dispose of the Petition by permitting the Petitioners to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the DRT. The First Respondent may take only symbolic possession of the secured asset at this stage, but shall not take forcible possession for a period of six weeks from today within which period, the Petitioners would be at liberty to apply before the DRT for interim relief. In the event that the DRT does not pass an interim order within the aforesaid period, the First Respondent will be at liberty VBC 4 wp6750.11-26.9 to take further steps in accordance with law. Order in these terms. No order as to costs. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( A.A. Sayed, J. )