H!GH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH 'BLE SHR! S.R. NAYAK, CJ. 'BLE SHRI V.K. Writ Petition ?Ct No. 6177 OF 200S Smt. Ansuya Kumar W/o Shri J.D. Kumar, aged about 33 years, R/o Agrasen Nagar, Raipur, Tehsll & Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh Versus Stete Bank of India, Phaphadih Branch, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Through Authorized OfRcer cum Present: Shri Abhijtt C Thakur, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER <t The foltowing oral order of the Court was passed by Nayak, CJ. This writ petition is directed against the refusai of the Debts Recovey Tribunal (for short "the DRT"), Jabalpur to grant ad-interim injuncSion sought by the petitioner herein in an appfication filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and ReconstrucSion of Financia! Assets and Enforcement of Security tnterest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act"). The following is the reason stated by the DRTto refuse ad-interim injunction; "Having heard the Ld. Counsei for applicant and after going ftrough the records it appears that bank has taken possession u/s 13(4) of Securitisation Act in July/AugusS 2005. As per Section 17 of Securitisation Act, applicati'on is to be filed within 45 days from the date of measures taken u/s 13(4} of Securitisation Act. Shri Thakur has submitted that delay may be condoned. The applicant has filed instant application -»," on 16-10-06 whereas auction is scheduled for 18-10- 2006. It will not be out of place to mention here that alleged agreement of construction of house is between the applicant and the Builder and fhe Bank is not the party to the said agreement. More so amount cannot be disbursed to the buiider without the consent/authority of the applicant, therefore, contention of applfcant that bank has disbursed amount in conrfvance with the builder cannot be prima facie accepted. The cancellation of Registration of Sakhari Samiti has nothing to do with the repayment of loan taken by the appficant. !n the facts and circumstances She case, I do not find strong prima facie case to jrant exparte ad interim relief, therefore, prayer is Furthermore, we are told that as proposed the auction was conducted on 18-10-2006. The discretion exercised by the DRT could not be condemned as arbitrary or unreasonable. !n the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out to interfere with the discretion exercised by the DRT. The writ petition is devoid of merit and ^l it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge Stkki