ORDER 1. Shri P.Y. Bhagwat, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.M. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Ramesh Chhazed, Advocate for the intervenor/auction purchaser. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Chandra Kumar making grievance against the auction/sale of his immovable property by the respondent/Bank on account of default in non-payment of the dues towards the Bank by the petitioner. 3. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the procedure as provided under section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') had not been followed inasmuch as no notice under the Act bad been served on the petitioner before conducting the auction. 4. It is not in dispute that auction had been conducted on March 25, 2006 by the Bank and in the aforesaid proceedings, the intervenor Yogesh Kumar Chaudhari has been declared as successful bidder. It is also not in dispute that even after the auction proceedings were conducted/finalized, the possession of the property in question remains with the petitioner and had not been so far handed over to the auction purchaser. 5. A reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2/Bank. In the reply it has been specifically maintained that the petitioner was a chronic defaulter and in spite of repeated opportunities given to him by the Bank, he had not cleared the outstanding dues. The procedure under the Act had been duly followed by the Bank before the sale of the property of the petitioner was conducted. The details of the aforesaid procedure claimed to have been followed by the Bank have been given in the reply. 6. A rejoinder has been tiled by the petitioner. Various claims made by the respondents have been denied. 7. Be that as it may, it is apparent that petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under section 17 of the Act. which has not been availed of. 8. 6. A rejoinder has been tiled by the petitioner. Various claims made by the respondents have been denied. 7. Be that as it may, it is apparent that petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under section 17 of the Act. which has not been availed of. 8. To a query put by the Court, as to how the present petition is maintainable since alternative remedy had not been availed, learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the auction proceedings had already been conducted and sale in favour of the intervenor has been tinalized, therefore, an appeal under section 17 of the Act was not an efficacious remedy, inasmuch as, the Debt Recovery Tribunal in an appeal filed by the petitioner, cannot grant the requisite relief and set aside the sale. 9. I am afraid that the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the specific provisions of section 17 of the Act which have to be read with provisions of section 13 (4) and section 13 (6) of the Act. Section 13 (4) of the Act provides that certain procedure has to be followed by the Bank before possession/ management of the assets can be taken over by the Bank. Section 13 (6) of the Act stipulates that once the possession/management of the assets has been taken over, the Bank can transfer the said assets to the transferee and thereafter, the aforesaid assets shall vest in the transferee. 10. Section 17 of the Act provides for an appeal and give authority to the appellate authority (Debt Recovery Tribunal) to examine as to whether the procedure under section 13 (4) of the Act had been followed or not and if the appellate authority comes to the conclusion that such a procedure had not been followed, then, the entire action taken by the creditors/Bank would be liable to be set aside. 11. 11. In these circumstances, it would necessarily follow that when a transfer under section 13 (6) of the Act is made by the Bank, and is claimed to have been made after following the due procedure of section 13 (4) of the Act, then in the event of the appellate authority coming to the conclusion that such a procedure had not been followed, the transfer of the assets under section 13 (6) of the Act, which is only a consequential action by the Bank of taking over the asset under section 13 (4) of the Act, must also fall, if the appellate authority (Tribunal) chooses to grant requisite relief to the debtor. 12. Consequently, it has to be held that the petitioner has a statutory, alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal. 13. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, if so advised. Since the matter is pending in this Court for more than one year, therefore, it is further directed that if the petitioner files the aforesaid appeal within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received, then the aforesaid appeal shall be entertained and adjudicated upon merits of the controversy and no objection shall be taken by the respondents/auction purchaser or the Tribunal with regard to the delay in filing the appeal. However, the respondent/Bank and the auction purchaser would be entitled to contest the aforesaid appeal on merits of the claim made by the petitioner. 14. Since concededly, the possession of the property is with the petitioner, therefore, it is further directed that till the matter is finally disposed of by the Tribunal, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed of the property in question. The Tribunal is also directed to finally decide the aforesaid appeal within a period of three months from the date of tiling thereof. 15. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner chooses not to file the appeal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, then such an appeal shall not be treated to be within limitation.