1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 2720 of 2008. M/s Gol Balaji Enterprises and another v Union of India and another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri AK Choube, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S. K. Mishra Asstt. Solicitor General of India for Respondent no.1 Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 20th October, 2008. 1. Heard Mr. Choube, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (For short Securitisation Act). The petitioners further state that the notification issued by the Government of India through the Ministry of Finance on 28-1-2003 is a subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court. 2 3. It is required to be to the notification dated 28-1-2003 noted that this Court has turned down the challenge, and our order is under challenge before the Supreme Court of India. It is also pertinent to note that the Supreme Court has not stayed the said notification as of now. 3. In any case, if pursuant to the impugned order, the possession of the property is taken over under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act, the said order is appealable under Section 17 of that Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. When such a statutory remedy of appeal is available, a Writ Petition need not be entertained. 4. The petition is rejected with liberty to approach the Tribunal. 5. As and when an appeal is preferred along with an application for stay or any other interim relief, the Tribunal may consider such an application on its own merits. JUDGE JUDGE 3 /Muley/