Sai Durga Medical Corporation rep., by its Proprietor v. The Chief Manager & Authorized Officer & Anr.

T HE HON'BLE SRI JUST ICE N.V. RAMANA & T HE HON'BLE SRI JUST ICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P.No.26418 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) Challenging the auction notice dated 7.9.2011 issued by the 1st respondent under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in respect of the properties of the petitioners, the present writ petition has been filed. It is the case of the petitioners that they availed loan of Rs.63,00,000/- by mortgaging the properties as security for repayment of loan amount and thereafter, due to unavoidable circumstances, fell due of some instalments and on that, the respondent-Bank issued notices under Section 13(2) and (4) of the Act and then, they filed SA No.162 of 2011 before the Debts Recovery Tri bunal , Visakhapatnam and along with the appeal, they also filed an application viz., I.A.No.365 of 2011 for grant of stay and the same is pending.

While so, the respondent- Bank issued the notice under challenge. Hence, the present writ petition. On 21.9.2011, while admitting the writ petition, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of impugned auction notice issued by the 1st respondent, dated 7.9.2011, subject to the condition of the petitioners depositing Rs.34,00,000/-, within a period of four weeks from that day. Today, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the interim order dated 21.9.2011 has not been complied with. In view of the non-compliance of the conditional order passed by this Court, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners made an application to the respondent-Bank seeking to refund the gold deposited by them so as to enable them to sell the same and clear off the loan, and the same is pending and therefore, a direction may be given to the respondent-Bank to consider the same.

It is always open for the respondent -Bank to consider such representation, if the law permits and no direction need to be passed in this regard. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the interim stay granted on 21.9.2011 stands vacated. No order as to costs. DATE: 18.11.2011 __________________ Justice N.V. Ramana ____________________ Justice P. Durga Prasad T HE HON'BLE SRI JUST ICE N.V. RAMANA & T HE HON'BLE SRI JUST ICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P.No.26418 of 2011 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana)

18.11.2011 Nn