1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICITON WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2857 OF 2007 Abdul Razzak Hussain Shaikh .. Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Others .. Respondents. Mr.R.U. Singh for the petitioner. Mr.D.G. Dhanure i/by M/s.M.V. Kini & Co. for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr.D.A. Nalawade, AGP for the State. Mr.G. Hariharam with M.S. Bhardwaj i/by Dr.T.C. Kaushik for respondent No.1 - Union of India. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 8th January, 2008 DATED : 8th January, 2008 DATED : 8th January, 2008 P.C. : 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Notice dated 11-12-2007 vide which the petitioner was called upon to hand over the possession of the property i.e. Ship No.4, Ground Floor, Building No.4, Leely View, 255, Sharma Estate, Next to Deewan Center, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai - 400 102 or possession thereof will be taken under the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitisation Act. The contention raised before us is that no notice as contemplated under Section 13(2) of the Act was served before taking recourse to coercive measures as provided under Section 13(4) of the Act and the Bank is acting arbitrarily and 2 the property worth Rs.30,00,000/- is being sold for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. 2. On behalf of the respondent, it is contended that the present writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition NO.2767 of 2006, M/s.Trade Well & Another V/s. Indian Bank & Another, where the Court has clearly held that remedy under Section 17 of the NPA Act is available to the petitioner which is a efficacious remedy. 3. We have no reason to differ with the view taken by the Division Bench. We are of the view that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to take recourse to the Appellate Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. 4. However, as the amount involved in the present case is not very high and the interest of the Bank is fully secured against the property mortgaged which already stand charged in contemplation of the provisions under Section 13 of the Act, we direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- within one week from today and deposit another Rs.50,000/- within three weeks thereafter. Till then the possession of the 3 property will not be taken. 5. This interim order shall remain in force for a period of four weeks and if in the meanwhile appeal is filed by the appellant, said appeal including passing of appropriate interim order will be considered by the appropriate forum in accordance with law. If the amount as directed is not deposited, this petition would stand dismissed. 6. The writ petition is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs. CHIEF JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR, J.