PNP 1 WP7620-3.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7620 OF 2011 Deepak Ravindra Disa ..Petitioner. versus Asset Reconstruction Company (I) Ltd. ..Respondent. ..... Mr. S.G. Thakar i/b Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande for the Petitioner. Mr. Berjis Colabawala with Mr. Vinod Kothari i/b Apex Law Partners for the Respondent. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. 3 October 2011. P.C. : The challenge in these proceedings is to an order of the District Magistrate dated 15 September 2009 under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The jurisdiction of the District Magistrate is, in view of a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Tradewell v. Indian Bank1, limited. The District Magistrate is only required to consider whether (i) the secured asset lies within his jurisdiction and (ii) a notice under Section 13(2) was issued. The contention of the Petitioner is that one of the parties to whom the notice was issued was his father R.G. Disa, who had died prior to the issuance of the notice. The notice was issued to three parties, including the company which is the principal borrower. The notice 1 2007 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 783. PNP 2 WP7620-3.10.sxw under Section 13(2) was issued on 12 September 2008 whereas the predecessor­in­interest of the Petitioner died on 7 April 2009. That apart, all the grievances that are sought to be raised in these proceedings can be well raised before the Tribunal in an appeal under Section 17. Having regard to the judgments of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon2 and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra3, no case for interference under Article 226 is made out. The Petition is dismissed. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.) 2 (2010) 8 SCC 110. 3 (2011) 2 SCC 782.