PNP 1 WP8049-3.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8049 OF 2011 Ramesh Melaram Sharma ..Petitioner. versus ICICI Bank ..Respondent. ..... Ms. Smita Gaidhani for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. 3 October 2011. P.C. : 1. The Respondent has issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on 31 March 2011 and notice under Section 13(4) on 17 September 2011. The Petitioner would have to be relegated to the remedy of an appeal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner states that at present, possession has not been taken and hence, the Petitioner has not filed an appeal under Section 17. Having regard to the fact that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy available before the Tribunal, where all questions can be raised in regard to the legality of the measures adopted by the bank, we decline to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, in PNP 2 WP8049-3.10.sxw order to enable the Petitioner to move the Tribunal for interim protection, we direct that in the event that possession has still not been taken by the Respondent by the date on which an authenticated copy of the order is communicated to the Respondent, the Respondent shall in the first instance take only symbolic possession. The Petitioner shall have a period of two weeks from today to move the Tribunal under Section 17. In the event that the Petitioner so moves the Tribunal, the Respondent shall not take forcible possession for a period of four weeks from today, expiring on 7 November 2011. If within the aforesaid period, no interim or ad interim protection has been granted by the Tribunal, the Respondent would be at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law. Since we have disposed of the Petition in the aforesaid terms without entertaining it on merits, we have not considered it necessary to issue notice to the Respondent. However, in the event that the Respondent considers it necessary to move this Court for any modification of this order, they shall be at liberty to do so with notice to the Petitioner. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. 2. On the request of Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner we clarify that this order shall not come in the way of the Respondent considering the application submitted by the Petitioner for the grant of one time settlement in accordance with law. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)