1 Cr.WP.1942.2010 & Cr.WP.2014.2010 mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1942 OF 2010 Deccan Resorts (Mahad) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank Ltd., & Ors. ...Respondents ALONGWITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2014 OF 2010 M/s. Narendra Manufacturing Co. & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank Ltd., & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Ms. Sapana Rachure i/b. T.N.Tripathi & Co., for the Petitioners Mr. Sanjiv Punalekar with Ms. Jyoti Ghorpade i/b. PRS Legal for the Respondent No.1 Mr. d.A. Nalawade with Mr. S.K. Shinde for Respondent 5 UOI Mrs. S.D. Shinde, A.P.P for the State CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 16TH JULY, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. So far as the Constitutional validity of the notification dated 28th January 2003 is concerned, the very same issue is pending for consideration before the Apex Court. 2 Cr.WP.1942.2010 & Cr.WP.2014.2010 3. While challenging the Constitutional validity of the notification dated 28th January 2003 the Petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 31st May 2010 and admittedly pursuant to the said order as and when the possession of the subject property is taken over by the financer or the Bank, the borrower’s right to appeal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 arises and thus, an alternative remedy of a statutory appeal becomes available to the borrower. This view has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Trade Well Vs. Indian Bank 2007 Cr.L.J. 2544. The Division Bench concluded that the remedy provided under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the 3rd party as well as the borrower where all grievances can be raised and therefore, a Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution should not, ordinarily, be entertained. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this Petition. It would be appropriate that the Petitioners are relegated to the alternative remedy as noted herein above. 4. Hence the Petitions fail at the threshold and they are rejected summarily. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)