SM 1 922.wp.918.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 918 OF 2011 Parekh Platinum Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and 4 others ....Respondents ____________ None for the Petitioner. Mr. Kishor Jain i/b Tushar Goadia and Ms. Nisha Parmar for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM: DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, J.J. DATED : AUGUST 29, 2011. P.C.: Counsel appearing on behalf of the Second Respondent states before the Court that the Bank had initiated action under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and had taken steps under Section 13 (4). The Court has been informed that, in pursuance of the order under Section 14 of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai dated 14 June 2010, the Bank has also taken possession of the secured asset. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution since the Petitioner has a remedy available under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. (A. A. SAYED, J.) (DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)