IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1626 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner V/s. Sunil Pandurang Mantri & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Kishor Jain i/b Mr.Tushar Goradia for Petitioner. Mr.Anirudh Joshi i/b Mrs.Smeeta Vora for Respondent No.1. Ms.Aparna Shinde for Respondent No.3. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY 24, 2009. FEBRUARY 24, 2009. FEBRUARY 24, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Preliminary objection has been raised by the Respondents about the maintainability of this Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that although remedy of appeal is available against the impugned Judgment, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court may : 2 : consider invoking the writ jurisdiction as the facts are so glaring and shocking. Nevertheless, as the grievance of the Petitioner can be efficaciously addressed even in appeal against the impugned order, the question of entertaining Writ Petition does not arise. 3. The Petitioner is permitted to withdraw this Petition with liberty to file appeal against the impugned decision which indeed will have to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. Counsel for the Respondents, in all fairness, submits that even if the proposed appeal is likely to get barred by limitation, the same will not be opposed on that count by the Respondents. That assurance is accepted. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.