THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.6835 of 2011 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioner having availed house loan facility from the respondent Bank in the year 2006, failed to repay the same. The respondent Bank issued notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) to the petitioner. The petitioner states that the Bank has forcibly taken possession of the property in question without giving him an opportunity to repay the amount. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-Bank. 3. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 18.03.2011, passed a conditional order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of two weeks from that date. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the Bank has already taken possession of the property in question and that the petitioner has not complied with the said interim order passed by this Court. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (c ) No. 10145 of 2010, dated 26th July 2010 at paragraph 27 of the judgment observed as under: “27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SRFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” 5. In view of the said judgment of the Apex Court and having regard to non-compliance of the interim orders of this Court and as possession of the property has already been taken by the Bank, we find no merit in this writ petition. However, as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to avail such remedy, within a period of two weeks from today. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondent Bank. 6. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date:12.07.2011 sj