INDIAN BANK Vs. K PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging an order of remand passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), both the bank as well as an auction purchaser has come up with these writ petitions.

(2.) Heard Mr. A. Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the bank, which is the petitioner in one writ petition; Mr. V. Gopala Rao Amancharla, learned counsel appearing for the auction-purchaser, who is the petitioner in another writ petition; and Mr. J.V. Suryanarayana, learned senior counsel appearing for the borrowers, who are respondents in both the writ petitions.

(3.) The borrowers, who are respondent Nos.3 to 6 in one writ petition and respondent Nos.2 to 5 in another writ petition, filed an application in S.A. No.568 of 2014 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Hyderabad, under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'Act, 2002'), challenging an auction notice, dated 30.07.2014, proposing to bring the secured assets to sale on 02.09.2014. It may not be necessary to record all details, as they may be irrelevant for a consideration of the issues raised in these two writ petitions.