wp2752.08 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2752 OF 2008 1) Vishwanath s/o Mohanlal Lohe, R/o-Main Road, Sangamner, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar and another. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The Sangamner Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sangamner, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar, Through its Manager, and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. N.R. Bhavar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. A.S. Bajaj Advocate for Respondent Nos 1 and 2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 13TH DECEMBER, 2010. wp2752.08 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner raises objection to the steps initiated by the Respondent Bank in respect of recovery of loan by resorting to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The counsel submits that the Respondent Bank has not followed the procedure as prescribed under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and submitted that joint family property cannot be acquired, according to the counsel. 3. Shri. Bajaj, learned counsel for the Respondent Bank has submitted that the Bank has acted in accordance with the provisions of law. The Petitioner has alternate remedy, which he wp2752.08 3 has not resorted to. Shri. Bajaj, learned counsel, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the Reported Judgment in the case of Khaja Industries vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2007 (6) Mh. L.J. Page 712. We have perused the Judgment cited before us. 4. In the light of the facts of the case and the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, we find that the Petitioner has efficacious statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the said Act. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner would approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal within two weeks from today. In case the Petitioner approaches within two weeks, then we observe that the Debt Recovery Tribunal, while appreciating the application for condonation of delay, shall take into wp2752.08 4 consideration the period during which the Petition was pending before this Court. All issues are kept open. 6. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/DEC10/wp2752.08