1 wp587.10.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 587 OF 2010 Shiv Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner. Vs. Canara Bank & Ors. ...Respondents. Shri Vincent Panikulangara i/by Shri Pankaj D. Purway for the Petitioner. Shri Parineet Saratkar i/by M/s. SSP Legal for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 26th August, 2010 P.C.:- 1 By way of this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the action of the Respondent, initiating proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short, SARFAESI Act) on the ground that the proceedings are not maintainable before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, and has prayed that the possession should be restored to him. 2 It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent had already obtained the decree from the DRT and inspite of executing the said decree, 2 wp587.10.sxw ssm a fresh application under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act has been filed before the DRAT. Since the proceedings are pending before the DRT, in our view, at this stage we do not want to intercept the proceedings before DRT. All the contentions can be raised by the Petitioner in the aforesaid proceedings before the DRT. The DRT may consider the issues raised in this petition in accordance with law. The maintainability of the proceedings may be decided by the DRT on its own merits and in accordance with law. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all these points which are raised in this petition before the DRT and it is for the DRT to consider the same in accordance with law. 3 It is also clarified that the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has frankly stated that the Petitioner has not challenged the final order passed by the DRT. 4 In view of what is stated above, the Petition is rejected. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)