HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 18903 OF 2010 Between: Smt. G. Vijayalaxmi Reddy W/o Sri G. Ramesh Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Federal Bank Limited represented by its Manager .....RESPONDENT ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed declaring the action of the respondent-Bank in interfering with the possession of the petitioner’s property bearing Plot No. 11, admeasuring 327.80 square yards situated at Balamrai Sapper’s Lane, Secunderabad pursuant to the notice dated 12.5.2010 issued under Section 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short ‘the SRFAESI Act”) as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner’s property in question. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner with a view to develop the property, availed housing loan from the respondent- Bank for an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs for the purpose of construction of the house and her husband stood as guarantor to the said loan in the year 1999 and accordingly respondent- Bank after due verification sanctioned the loan and she entered into a Security Agreement dated 7.4.1999 creating interest in respect of the Schedule Property. It is stated that the respondent-Bank issued an impugned notice on 12.5.2010 asking the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,02,596/- along with interest at the rate of 19% per annum with effect from 8.11.2001 and immediately petitioner approached the Bank and sought for break up of 15 equal monthly instalments but the respondent- Bank did not agree for the same and insisted her to pay the entire amount. It is stated that the petitioner requested to put her case in OTS but the Bank refused to the said proposal. Therefore, it is stated that if the further action of the respondent- Bank pursuant to the notice-dated 12.5.2010 issued under Section 13(2) of the Act is not stayed, the petitioner will be put into irreparable loss and injury. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, the respondent-Bank only issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act on 12.5.2010 and they have not taken any further steps. Therefore, the Writ Petition is premature inasmuch as there is no cause of action arises. As and when the cause of action arises, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court in SLP © No. 10145 of 2010 dated 26th July 2010 observed as under: “It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” Following the above Supreme Court Judgment, the Writ Petition is dismissed and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal as and when cause of action arises. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _________________________ G. CHANDRAIAH ,J DATE: 16.08.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.