1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4392 OF 2010 1) Shri Jayant Anant Shidaye, Age 46 years, Occu. Properietor of Mandar Ayurvedic Products, 200, Baliram Peth, Jalgaon. 2) Shri Hemant Purushottam Mhalas, Age 48 years, Occu. Business, R/o 37, Baliram Peth, Mhalas Sankul, Jalgaon. 3) Shri Ravindra Bhaskar Ghorpade, Age 49 years, Occu. Business, R/o 200, Baliram Peth, Tq. And District. Jalgaon. 4) Smt. Shailaja Anant Shidaye, Age 78 years, Occu. Household, R/o as above. 5) Shri Hemant Anant Shidhaye, Age 51 years, Occu. Business, R/o Plot No. 17, Mangalmurti Nagar, Old R.T.O., Colony, Jalgaon A/P Nashik, Dist. Nashik. 6) Smt. Anjali Anant Shidhave, @ Smt. Anjali Srikant Oka, Age 48 years, Occu. Household, R/o Nilkanth Vally, “E” Wing, Block No. 101, Lal Chowk, Kalyan, Thane. .. PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) Authorised Officer, Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon Main branch, Jalgaon 2 New Administrative Building, Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 2) Branch Manager, The Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon Behind G.S. Ground, Jalgaon. 3) The State of Maharashtra, through Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, M.J. College road, Jalgaon RESPONDENTS. ... Shri N.B. Sawant, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri M.M. Avhad, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Shri P.P. More, A.G.P. for respondent No. 3. CORAM :- P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 7th MAY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.) Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges notice dated 26/02/2010 issued Under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and 3 Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (here- in-after referred as ’said Act’). We are not inclined to enter into the merits of the matter for the sole reason that the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy by way of filing Securitsation Application to the Debt Recovery Tribunal Under Section 17 of the said Act. 3. The petitioner also makes a grievance about the judgment delivered by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad dated 03/11/2009 in Secutrisition Application No. 35/2009, in respect of the said judgment also the petitioner has got alternative remedy by way of a substantiative appeal Under Section 18 of the said Act before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 4. In the light of above, we dismiss the petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J] SDM* 4392.10WP(J)