Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Rule. Counsel for the Respondents waive service. On the request of Counsel and by consent, the rule is heard finally at this stage.

2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 6 October 2010. The order of the Appellate Tribunal was delivered in an Appeal filed by the Bank against an order by which the Tribunal had held that the Bank had unlawfully taken possession of a secured asset on 28 July 2010 under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The Tribunal had directed redelivery of possession to the mortgagor, of the secured asset. The Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that service of the notice under Section 13(2) had been validly effected and that the notice of possession under Section 13(4) was valid. However, the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the notice of sale was not validly issued. Hence, the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the action of the Bank upto the stage of the publication of the possession notice under Rule 8(2)