srk １ wp-1571-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1571 OF 2010 Rototex Polyester, a partnership firm, represented by its partner Shri Dhanesh P. Jain. ... Petitioner Versus The Chairman & Managing Director, Canara Bank and others. ... Respondents Mr. M.J. Nedumpara with Ms. Rohini B. Amin for the petitioner. Ms. Vimal Gupta for the respondents. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Monday, August 9, 2010 P .C. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is a borrower of the respondent-bank, has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) That the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Tradewell v. Indian Bank, reported in 2007(3) AIR Bom 656 be referred to the larger Bench for reconsideration. (ii) To set aside the notice dated 22nd November, 2009 and the notification dated 30th September, 2009 putting up the petitioner's factory for sale and the notice dated 13th June, 2009 taking possession of the petitioner's residential property as null and void. srk ２ wp-1571-10 (iii) To restrain the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai from passing any order on an application under section 14 of the Securitisation Act. (iv) To declare that the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (3A) of section 13 and the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitisation Act are unconstitutional. (v) To declare that the provisions of Rule 2(a) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 are invalid. The petitioner has also prayed for compensation from the respondent-bank for the alleged malicious acts on the part of the officers of the respondent-Bank. 3. The decision of the Division Bench of this court in Trade Well has been rendered after taking into consideration the decisions of the Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 2371 and also in Rajesh Kumar and ors. v. D.C.I.T. and ors., AIR 2007 SC 181. 4. In so far as constitutional validity of sub-sections (2), (3) and (3A) of section 13 and section 14 of the Act are concerned, the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court and the Division Bench decision of this court in Tradewell have considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner and they have been answered against the petitioner. srk ３ wp-1571-10 5. We, therefore, see no merit in this petition. It may also be noted that the petitioner has made an application before the Tribunal under section 17 of the Securitisation Act and, therefore, the petitioner has an equally efficacious alternative remedy instead of moving this court for challenging the notices dated 22nd November, 2008 and 30th June, 2009 and notification dated 30th September, 2009. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismiss the same on the ground that the petitioner's application under section 17 of the Securitisation Act is already pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is open to the petitioner to move before the Tribunal for hearing and deciding the said application expeditiously and if such an application is made, the Tribunal shall consider and decide the same within one month from the date the petitioner approaches the Tribunal and cooperates for expeditious disposal. 6. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is required to comply with the statutory requirements before the application under section 17 can be heard, this court may not be treated to have exempted the petitioner from complying with such conditions. 7. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 8. The learned advocate for the petitioner wanted to argue the matter indefinitely but we have not permitted to do so. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.