1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.404/2008 Nitin s/o Tribhuvandas Raichura vs. The Khamgaon Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.A. Marathe, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.1. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 11th November, 2008. The petitioner is the guarantor to the loan obtained by his brother from the respondent no.1- Bank and the petitioner impugns the notices issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the Securitization Act” for short). This petition has been filed on or before 30.1.2008 and the respondent-Bank has brought out in its reply that on 6.12.2007 i. e. before the petition was filed, it has invoked the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act and taken over the possession on 6.12.2007. It is further stated that on 6.12.2007 it was symbolic possession and physical possession has been taken over on 28.1.2008. There is no dispute 2 that the action taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act is appealable under Section 17 of the said Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and when the petitioner has such a statutory remedy of an appeal, the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The petitioner has also raised an issue as to whether the Cooperative Banks are empowered to take action under the Securitization Act. By the Notification dated 28.1.2003 issued by the Government of India through Ministry of Finance the Cooperative Banks are brought within the ambit of the said Act and the said Notification was a subject matter of challenge before this Court and the challenge failed. The aggrieved parties have approached the Apex Court by filing SLPs. Pendency of the SLPs, by itself, is not a reason to entertain the Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India when a statutory remedy of an appeal is available to the petitioner and all the issues raised in the petition can also be raised in the appeal. Hence, the petition is rejected with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, by way of an appeal under Section 17 of the 3 Securitization Act. If such an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks, the order of status quo granted earlier will continue to operate for a said period of two weeks. It is made clear that the prayer for interim relief in the appeal to be filed before the Tribunal will have to be considered, on its own merits, and without being influenced by the order of status quo passed by this Court. If there is an issue of limitation in the appeal before the Tribunal, the period of pendency of this petition shall be taken into consideration. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.