: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6355 OF WRIT PETITION NO.6355 OF WRIT PETITION NO.6355 OF 2005 2005 2005 --------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office : Memoranda of Coram, : appearances, Court’s : Court’s or Judge’s Orders orders or directions : & Registrar’s orders : --------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Pravin Samdani with Sanjay Jain with Prakash Shinde i/b M/s. Dhruva & Co. for Petitioners. Mr.S.G.Rajput for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 16th June, 2006. DATE : 16th June, 2006. DATE : 16th June, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Samdani in support of this Petition. Mr.Rajput appears for respondents. 2. The petitioners are challenging a notice under section 13(4) dated 31st August, 2005 issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, : 2 : 2002 (for short ’Securitisation Act’. The submission of the petitioners is that for recovery of amounts which are sought to be recovered, the proceedings initiated earlier under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act have been resorted. It is also submitted that the First Respondent Bank has intervened in the other proceedings initiated by Bank of India and the intervention application was rejected. It is, therefore, pointed out that the present petition be admitted and the impugned notice be injuncted from being proceeded further. 3. Mr.Rajput appearing for the 1st Respondent Bank points out that the proceedings under other Acts can not prevent an action under the Securitisation Act in view of the overriding effect given under section 34 of the present Act. An appeal is available against the impugned notice under Section 17 of this Act to the : 3 : Debt Recovery Tribunal. The respondents are infact alleging a fraudulent conduct on the part of parents of the petitioners who are minors. 4. We have noted the submissions. We do not propose to go into the merits of the submissions for the simple reason that an appeal is available under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act where pleas taken up the Petitioners and Respondents can be gone into. The petitioners are already protected by the interim order that possession of the flat is not to be taken. That will continue till the hearing and disposal of the appeal as and when filed by the petitioners. Time taken during the pendency of the present petition will be excluded for purposes of limitation. The respondents will take formal possession of the flat and issue a letter to that effect. : 4 : 5. The Petition stands disposed of. ... (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)