1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) 187 OF 2010 Varsha K. Shah & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Union of India and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.V.R.Dhond i/b Ms.Sabeena Mahadik for the petitioners Mr.C.J.Joy with Mr.N.R.Prajapati for respondent no.1 Mr.Nasikwala with Mr.Motwani for respondent no.2 CORAM : J. N. Patel, Acting C.J., B.R.Gavai, J. DATE : February 2, 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners have impugned the order dt.13.11.09 passed by respondent no. 3 on the ground that no equitable mortgage has been created by the petitioners in favour of respondent no.2 bank and that the original documents pertaining to the flat purportedly mortgaged to the bank were obtained under a misrepresentation and withheld by the bank, and therefore, in absence of any validly created mortgage by the petitioner, any action taken by respondent no.2 bank to enforce mortgage using the Securitization 2 and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is bad and illegal and liable to be set aside. 3. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. We find that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate after satisfying himself of the compliance s.13(4) of the said Act has passed the impugned order. It has been brought to our attention that on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.Kirti B. Shah gave an undertaking before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate which reads as under: It is respectfully submitted before this Hon ble Court that the “ ’ matter may be kept on 18th January 2010 at 4.00 p.m. because the settlement tasks (compromise formula) is going on to make the payment to the respondents on 18th of Jan, 10, otherwise the possession will be handed over to the respondents.” 4. Needless to state that the petitioners have a remedy provided under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the said order, as we do not find that the order is not in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (B.R.GAVAI, J) 3