MUSTAFA MOHIDIN ABBAS, S/O K.H. ABBAS, REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER SMT. MAIMUNA AZEEZ Vs. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND ABDUL RAHIMAN S/O LATE MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 22 -12 -2008 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore in I.R. No. 459/2008 and also sought for a declaration declaring the entire sale proceedings as null and void.

(2.) IT is the case of the Petitioner that he has availed loan of Rs. 8,78,535/ - from the first Respondent -Bank and when he had failed to repay the said loan amount, the Bank issued notice for payment of the said amount under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('the Act' for short). For non -payment of the said amount, possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act has been issued. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 17 of the Act in ASA 122/2006 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on 8 -9 -2006. The officers of the Bank proceeded with the recovery of the loan amount by initiating recovery proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore for taking physical possession of the property and auctioning the same. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order for taking possession of the property on 25 -9 -2006. In the meanwhile, the tenant who is in occupation of the said property approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal in an appeal No. ASA 344/2006. The said appeal was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 2 -8 -2007. After dismissal of the said appeal by the tenant, the Bank issued a paper publication in 14 -8 -2007 for auctioning the schedule property. Being aggrieved by the paper publication, the Petitioner once again approached the Tribunal in I.R. No. 830/2007 challenging the auction notice.

(3.) SRI . S.N. Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent -Bank contended that against the order at Annexure -A, the Petitioner has got an alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Act and without exhausting the said remedy, the Petitioner has approached this Court. Sri. Bhat further submits that the Petitioner has approached the Tribunal thrice challenging the action of the Respondent -Bank. Though the Tribunal has granted an interim order, he has not complied with any of the interim orders. Hence, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the same.