CWP No. 620 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 620 of 2010 Date of decision January 15 , 2010 M/s Sat Medical Hall, ....... Petitioner Versus UCO Bank, Miller Ganj Branch, Ludhiana and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Rohit Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks intervention of this Court at the stage when the first respondent being a financial institution has issued a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner is reported to have replied to the notice but instead of taking any further action, if it is punishable under Section 13 (4), the Bank and their officials are coming at the property and threatening the petitioner to dispossess him without recourse to the provisions of law. 2. A challenge to any person aggrieved action of a financial institution shall have an appropriate remedy only within the four corners of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Mardia Chemcals Ltd. And others Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2004 (4) SCC 311, while upholding the vires of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, has laid down that remedy of aggrieved person shall be only under the provisions of said Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirming it CWP No. 620 of 2010 2 in yet another decision in Transcore Vs. Union of India 2008 1 SCC 125 and held that any remedy under the provisions of the Act can not be shifted to avail of remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The writ remedy is not an appropriate remedy. Learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to protect his possession, if any threat of criminal trespass is apprehended at the instance of Bank officials, that is by a resort other than the procedure established by law under the Code of Criminal Procedure and for offences under Indian Penal Code. 4. Reserving the liberty to the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 15 ,2010 archana