AJN 17-OS-WP(L)453.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.453 OF 2011 Natural Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioners Vs. Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara with Ms. Rohini M. Amin for the petitioners. Dr. A.K. Barthukur with Mr. P.T. Thorat for respondents 2 and 3. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 17TH MARCH, 2011. P.C.:- 1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged notice dated 14/12/2010 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the said Act”) and also the reply dated 18/2/2011 sent by respondent 2 under Section 13(3-A) of the said Act. In our AJN 17-OS-WP(L)453.11 2 opinion, the petition is premature. Proviso to section 13(3- A) of the said Act states that the reasons communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not confer any right upon upon the borrower to prefer an application to DRT under Section 17 of the said Act. Under Section 17 of the said Act, the right to appeal accrues to any person (including borrower), when any of the measures referred to in sub- section (4) of Section 13 of the said Act are taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer. In our opinion, no case is made by the petitioners for interference at this stage. If any measures are taken under Section 13(4) of the said Act, the petitioners can approach the DRT under Section 17 of the said Act, if they so desire. In this connection, it will be useful to refer to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd., etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors., etc. etc. AIR 2004 SC 2371; M/s. Transcore v. Union of India & Anr. AIR 2007 SC 712; United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 3413 and Kanaiyalal Lalchand AJN 17-OS-WP(L)453.11 3 Sachdev & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Criminal Appeal Nos.338-340 of 2011 dated 17/2/2011. In the circumstances, the petition cannot be entertained. 2. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 3. Petition is dismissed. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [R.G. KETKAR, J.]