Sri K. Gopalkrishna vs ING Vysya Bank Limited and Smt. G.K. Sulochana Since diseased rep.by L. Rs. (Mrs. Mamatha Chiruvella, Mr. Adarsh and Vishwas G.K.)

B.S. Patil, J.—Admittedly, Petitioner had filed S.A. No. 677/2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short, hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal''), Bangalore, challenging the action of the Respondent-bank in issuing possession notice u/s 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). On 17.03.2010, an order came to be passed by the Tribunal directing the bank to release the documents to the Petitioner on payment of ( Rs. ).8 lakhs along with interest with effect from 21.01.2009 till the date of payment by raising loan or by sale of the property by the Petitioner herein directly to any party who provides such loan. It is his submission that this order came to be challenged by the bank before the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 600/2010 and the matter is pending. It is also asserted by the Petitioner that a sum of Rs. .28 lakhs has been already paid.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal the Bank has proceeded to sell the property on 21.01.2011. It is in this background that the Petitioner has approached this Court to set aside the sale conducted on 21.01.2010 and all consequential proceedings that may be initiated in this regard.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and on consideration of the materials on record, I find that as the matter is seized by the Appellate Tribunal and the sale is sought to be conducted during the pendency of the proceedings, it is appropriate that the Petitioner makes his grievance regarding the sale conducted in the case that is pending before the Appellate Tribunal. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another Vs. Ashok Saw Mill, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with the action taken by the secured creditor even after the stage contemplated u/s 13(4) is over. It is specifically laid down in the aforementioned judgment that by including Sub-section (3) in Section 17 of the Act, the Legislature has gone to the extent of vesting the DRT with authority to even set aside a transaction including sale and to restore possession to. the borrower in appropriate cases; Therefore, since a fresh cause of action has arisen to the Petitioner in view of the sale conducted, it is open to the Petitioner to approach the Tribunal also u/s 17 of the Act and challenge the action initiated, if he is so advised. Reserving such liberty to the Petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed. However, confirmation of the sale shall stand stayed for a period of two weeks.