1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.650 OF 2010 Alpha & Omega Diagnostics India Ltd. and Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sharan Jagtiani, Ms.Sheetal S. Shah i/b M/s.Mehta and Girdharlal for the petitioners Mr.Amol Arote i/b M/s.Goenka Law Associates for respondent no.1 Mr.B.B.Saraf with Mr.Vinod Kothari, Mr.Sahil Saiyed and Ms.Smita Lad i/b M/s.Amex Law Partners for respondent no.2 CORAM : J. N. Patel, Acting C.J. & S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. DATE : June 9, 2010 P.C. : 1. The petitioner impugns in this writ petition a Notice issued under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2003 (for short, Securitisation Act) 2. Mr.Chinoy, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are seeking a declaration that respondent no.2 has no right to claim, as an assignee, any sum, because before the deed was assigned and even subsequently, the respondent no.1 has not issued any 2 notice prior to execution of the deed of assignment, but being a authority bound by the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it ought to have acted fairly and reasonably in the matter. If the petitioners had made a proposal and the debt of not just the petitioners but a third party has also been assigned by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 for 6.2 crores although the same is within the vicinity of 35 to 40 crores, the least the petitioners expected was an opportunity to submit a reasonable offer to respondent no.2 and obtain a response thereto. 3. We are afraid that we cannot entertain this petition because it impugns a notice under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. Apart from exhausting the opportunity provided therein and u/s 13(3) and 13(3A) additionally any adverse action pursuant to such notice can be challenged by the petitioners by resorting to the remedies provided by the said Act. Furthermore, during the course of pursuing the remedies provided by the act, the petitioners can raise all pleas and also forward their offer for a final settlement to respondent no.2, if they so desire. 4. This writ petition cannot be entertained for want of alternate and efficacious remedies available under the act itself. Writ Petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J 3