IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13341 of 2009 Between: V.Muralidhar Rao Rep. by his G.P.A. Mr.P.Vishal Kumar. ..... PETITIONER AND State Bank of Hyderabad, Barkas Branch, 18-1-31 & 32, Keshavagiri, Barkas, Hyderabad rep. by its Authorized Officer & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No. 13341 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) On preferring an appeal in S.A.No.249 of 2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad by the borrower-3rd respondent herein questioning the measures initiated by the first respondent-Bank for conducting the auction, dated 31.3.2008, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, by order, dated 12.12.2008 allowed the appeal directing the first respondent-Bank to refund the amount deposited by the writ petitioner, who is the auction purchaser with interest at 9% per annum compounded monthly from the date of deposit till the date of payment and the borrower-3rd respondent herein was directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards costs along with Rs.1.50 lakhs to the petitioner as solatium. As the said order has not been implemented, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking refund of the amount deposited by him pursuant to the auction conducted on 31.3.2008. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents represented that pursuant to the directions issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the amount deposited by the petitioner-auction purchaser has been refunded and only the interest part at 9% as directed by the Tribunal has to be paid. It is also represented that questioning the award to the extent of granting solatium, the first respondent-Bank has filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in R.A.S.A.No.33 of 2008 and therefore, the payment of the said amount would depend upon the result in the appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the borrower-3rd respondent now represented that a sum of Rs.50,000/- directed to be paid by the 3rd respondent has already been paid to the writ petitioner. Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-Bank submitted that the Bank is agreeable to pay the interest as directed to be paid, within the time granted by this Court and the payment of Rs.1.50 lakhs towards solatium will abide by the result of the appeal in R.A.S.A.No.33 of 2008, for which, the counsel for the writ petitioner has no objection. In view of the above, we accordingly direct the first respondent- Bank to pay the entire interest amount calculated as per the directions issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. It is made clear that the payment of Rs.1.50 lakhs payable to the writ petitioner towards solatium will abide by the result of the appeal in R.A.S.A.No.33 of 2008. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) ____________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) DECEMBER 01, 2009 TSR