Decided on April 17,2006



K.Gnanaprakasam, - (1.) THIS appeal is directed as against the order dated 16.12.2005 passed by the DRT, Hyderabad, in pending SA-156/2005. Both the learned Advocates for the appellants and the respondent are heard.
(2.) As against the measures taken by the appellants under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act, the respondent preferred an application before the DRT, Hyderabad, which is pending in SA-156/2005. During course of the argument, from the appeal papers, it is revealed that the appellants have issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act, in respect of two properties. One is situated at Varadapalayam and the other at Thirumudivakkam, Chennai. But however, at the time of taking measures under Section 13(4), the appellants have issued first possession notice only in respect of the property at Varadapalayam on 15.10.2005, and subsequently issued another possession notice in respect of the property situated outskirts of Chennai also, on 17.10.2005. As against the first possession notice dated 15.10.2005, the respondent appealed in SA 156/2005 before the DRT, Hyderabad, which is pending. As against the second possession notice, the respondent filed an application to stay all the proceedings in respect of the Chennai property and the DRT by its order dated 9.12.2005 passed order as under: The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank states that the Bank will not confirm the sale that will be held on 12.12.2005 with respect to a secured interest at Chennai. In view of the same, the respondent Bank shall go on with the auction but shall not confirm the sale till 16.12.2005. The matter came up for hearing on 16.12.2005, and on that day evidence affidavit of the applicant (Borrower) was filed and Exhibits were marked and for the respondent's evidence affidavit, time was given up to 31.1.2006. As there was no bidder in the auction held on 12.12.2005, the borrower prayed for the extension of the interim order dated 9.12.2005 until further orders and the same was opposed by the appellant Banks. After hearing the parties, the learned Presiding Officer, of DRT, Hyderabad, was of the view that by taking into consideration of the fact that the conduct of the auction was not stayed and only the confirmation of the sale alone was sought to be stayed pending disposal of the S.A., extended the interim order dated 9.12.2005 until further orders and posted the Section A. on 31.1.2006 for respondents' evidence affidavit and for further proceedings. Aggrieved by the order of extension of stay, the Banks have preferred this appeal.
(3.) THE learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the interim stay granted by the DRT, Hyderabad in SA-156/2005 is in respect of the property situated in Chennai, but whereas SA-156/2005 was filed in respect of the measures taken in respect of the property situated at Varadapalayam, which is within the jurisdiction of the DRT, Hyderabad, and thereby pointed out that the DRT has no jurisdiction to pass such an order. It is further submitted that as far as SA-156/2005 is concerned, the respondent is entitled to prosecute the same after completion of the proceedings and the respondent cannot pray for stay of the proceeding in respect of the property situated at Chennai, as no appeal or application was filed by the respondent as against the measures taken in respect of the property situated at Chennai. It is, therefore, submitted that the appellants may be permitted to confirm the sale and realise the amount and appropriate the same in respect of the amount due by the respondent to the appellants.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.