1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.340/2008 Dr. Samshoddin s/o Bismillah Shaikh Vs. Union of India and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.L. Khapre, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Mishra, A.S.G. for respondent no.1 Mr. A.A. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. V.V. Bhangde, Advocate for respondent no.3. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 11th November, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has borrowed an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- from the respondent no.2-bank in the year 2006 and he had defaulted in repayment. The respondent-bank, therefore, invoked the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the Securitization Act” for short) and issued notice dated 27.11.2007 under Section 13(2) of the said Act. One more notice was issued under the said provisions on 26.12.2007 and the said notices have been challenged in this petition. 2 At the first place, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.2 is not a bank within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Securitization Act and, therefore, it cannot be termed as “secured creditor”. Secondly, it is contended that the Notification issued by the Government of India on 28.1.2003 making the Securitization Act applicable to the Cooperative Banks was a subject matter of challenge before this Court in the cases of Khaja Industries vs. State of Maharashtra and another : 2007(6) ALL MR 887 and M/s Rama Steel Industries & Ors. vs. Union of India & anr. : 2007 (6) ALL MR 739. Both the petitions came to be dismissed and the judgments of this Court are under challenge in SLP No. 17573/2007, SLP No. 17897/2007, SLP No. 17898/2007, SLP No.18581/2007and SLP No.19685/2007 and unless the SLPs. are finally decided, the applicability of the Notification dated 28.1.2003 cannot be up-held in respect of the Cooperative Banks. Thirdly, it is submitted that even if the Notification dated 28.1.2003 is up-held, the said Notification does not apply to the Multi State Cooperative Banks. 3 During the course of the arguments Shri Khapre, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the Securitization Act is not applicable to the Multi State Cooperative Banks even if the Notification dated 28.1.2003 is held to be applicable to the Cooperative Banks. In this regard, he has referred to Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Securitization Act and Section 56 (cciiia) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It was submitted by Mr. Khapre that the Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank is neither the State Cooperative Bank nor Central Cooperative Bank. We have noted and it has not been disputed that pursuant to the impugned notices, an order under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act has not yet been passed. The order passed under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act is appealable under Section 17 of the Securitization Act and all the issues raised in this petition can be agitated before the Appellate Court as and when there is an occasion for the petitioner to file an appeal. The pendency of the SLPs. as noted here-in-above cannot be the only reason to entertain a writ petition against the impugned notices issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act and 4 admittedly, on account of the interim order passed by this Court on 15.2.2008, the action under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act could not be taken as the respondents were restrained from doing so. Having considered the arguments advanced by Mr. Khapre, we are satisfied that this petition cannot be entertained and the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of an appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization Act as and when the action under Section 13(4) of the said Act is taken by the respondents. Hence, the petition is rejected by relegating the petitioner to the remedy of an appeal. All the issues raised in this petition are left open. Ad-interim order dated 15.2.2008 is hereby vacated. However, it is directed that pursuant to the order to be passed under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act, physical possession of the assets, which are the subject matter of the impugned notices shall not be taken over by the respondent-bank for a period of two weeks so as to enable the petitioner to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. We also make it clear that the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider the petitioner's prayer for interim relief in the appeal to be 5 filed, on its own merits and without being influenced by the interlocutory orders passed by this Court. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.