1 445.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.445 OF 2011 Swati D.Shah ...Petitioner Versus State Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.V.R.Dhond with Mr.T.N.Tripathi & Ms.Sapna Rachure i/b T.N.Tripathi & Co.for Petitioner. Mr.Simit Purohit with Mr.Rajesh Talekar & Mr.Mihir Mody i/b K.Ashar & Co. for Respondent No.1. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P. for State. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- FEBRUARY 22, 2011. P.C. 1. This Petition takes exception to the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai dated 27th May, 2008 in CC No.242/M/2007 allowing the application preferred by the respondent Bank of taking possession of the secured assets/immovable property referred to therein. The petitioner claims to be one of the heir of original owner of the property described at clause (c) in Para 1 of the order, namely; 2nd floor, Mini Divya Lok, 320 L.D.Ruparel Marg, Mumbai -400 006. It is the case 2 445.11 of the petitioner that after the demise of the original owner, the petitioner along with her two brothers have inherited the said property. It is not in dispute that the respondent Bank issued show-cause notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) against the original owner on 1st September, 2007. However, having realised that the original owner has expired, further notices under Section 13(2) of the Act were issued to the two sons of the original owner namely; Mr.Shekhar J. Mehta and Mr.Shailesh J.Mehta respectively in their capacity as legal heirs of Mrs.Shanta Jayantilal Mehta dated 7th May, 2009. It is the case of the petitioner that no such notice has been received by the petitioner even though she is one of the legal heir of Mrs.Shanta Jayantilal Mehta. 2. The stand of the respondent Bank, on the other hand, is that they have already taken symbolic possession of the said premises, pursuant to show-cause notice dated 1st September, 2007, albeit, issued against the dead person who was the original owner thereof. The fact remains that symbolic possession of the property has already been taken by the respondent Bank. The petitioner claims to be one of the legal heir of Mrs.Shanta J.Mehta. The petitioner, like other heirs, against whom formal notice has been issued on 3 445.11 7th May, 2009, may be free to take recourse to remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on grounds as may be available in law. 3. To enable the petitioner to move the Tribunal, we observe that no precipitative steps be taken by the respondent Bank for a period of ten days from today. This order would enure only in favour of petitioner before this Court. 4. In view of the above, it will not be open to the respondent Bank now to urge before the Debts Recovery Tribunal that formal show cause notice has not been issued to the petitioner. 5. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)