``We expect that in another two-three months, the bank will get tribunal's decree to proceed against the Bachchans to recover its funds,'' Canara Bank lawyer Nishit Dhruva told this newspaper. Kotak Mahindra Finance had evaluated the project and advised the company on raising funds from various avenues. The project, which made heavy losses, was based on the brand image of the Bollywood superstar.

The Bachchans can now move the appellate authority to stay the DRT order or as a last resort can move the Supreme Court. Dhruva says that in any case, the Bachchans will have to deposit 60-70 per cent money owed to Canara Bank even if they choose to move the appellate authority.

In his order today, the presiding officer, V S Deshmukh, also askedAmitabh and Jaya to declare on affidavit their assets as early as possible adjourning the matter to December 14 next.

The tribunal held that in view of non-payment of credit facilities availed by AB Corp Ltd, Canara Bank was within its right to seek attachment of the Bachchan's house valued at Rs 10 crore in the market. The Bachchans have already declared that their bungalow has been mortgaged to Sahara India for a loan of about Rs 15 crore. The mortgage document has, however, shown that Sahara's loan has been paid off.

The tribunal has also temporarily restrained Amitabh and other respondents from selling or disposing of or creating third party interests over Prateeksha. However, the DRT turned down the bank's plea to appoint court receiver because the tribunal was not empowered to do so.

The tribunal also rejected the bank's claim to attach Mansa bungalow occupied by the mega star and his family in suburban Juhu as it was the exclusive property of Ramola Bachchan. ``Though ABCL was declared a sickcompany by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), Canara Bank had the right to proceed against ABCL guarantors and promotors, Amitabh and Jaya Bachchan,'' said the DRT order.

This is the first time the DBT has upheld the creditor's right to proceed against guarantors of loan in the event of company moving the BIFR. The tribunal opined that under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, borrower and surety were jointly and severally liable to repay the loan which meant that the creditor could proceed against the surety only. In such a case, there was no question of applicability of the provisions of SICA, it ruled.