HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1691 OF 2011
Sri K. Rajendra Naidu S/o Sri Seshaiah Naidu
The State Bank of India represented by its Authorized Officer and one another
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad in I.A.No. 968 of 2010 in S.A.No. 223 of 2010, as illegal and arbitrary.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner created equitable mortgage for the loan availed by M/s Circuitech, for a sum of Rs. 23,85,000/- from the first respondent-Bank. As the matter stood thus, it is stated that the respondent-Bank issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short “the SRFAESI Act”), on 26.6.2010 and demanded a sum of Rs. 26,43,635/-. Further it is stated that the respondent-Bank also taken steps under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein, approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad by way filing an I.A. viz., I.A.No. 968 of 2010 in S.A.NO. 223 of 2010 and the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the I.A filed by the petitioner herein. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“ Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the applicant has not made out a prima facie case to grant an interim order of stay of all proceedings initiated by the respondent-Bank. Further, the balance of convenience is also not in favour of the applicant. Hence, this Tribunal does not find any merits in the present application to intervene in the action taken by the respondent-Bank under the SRFAESI Act for recovery of its legitimate dues. Therefore, the present application, which is devoid of merits, is liable to be rejected.”
Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record.
The main grievance of the petitioner herein is that the first respondent-Bank is taking measures for taking possession/sale of the immovable property in pursuance of the possession notice dated 14.9.2010 issued under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act.
When once the Tribunal is seized off the matter and there is no decision rendered on merits, it is not open for this Court to determine the rights of the parties. Hence, we are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction inasmuch as there is no decision rendered by the Tribunal on merits.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Debts Recovery Tribunal is directed to dispose of S.A. viz., S.A.No. 223 of 2010, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.
GHULAM MOHAMMED, J
K.G. SHANKAR, J
// TRUE COPY //
1. 2 CD copies.