1 C.R.A. NO.55/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.55 OF 2007 The Manager, Godavari Urban Co-operative Bank, Vazirabad, Nanded ... APPLICANT VERSUS Narendra s/o Narayanrao Lokhande, Age 46 years, Occ. Business, R/o Ulhasnagar, Malegaon Road, Nanded ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri M.V. Ghatge, Advocate holding for Shri B.N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for applicant Shri G.G. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 20th December, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 722/2006 seeking to challenge the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, branding the 2 C.R.A. NO.55/2007 same to be illegal, null and void and not enforceable on the plaintiff and the guarantor. The Bank/ revision applicant agitated before the said Court that the suit is barred due to non compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 as no notice requiring 60 days time was served to the respondent or left at the office of the Bank with description of the plaintiff and the reliefs plaintiff desired. The other aspect of the matter is, the action in terms of Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act was not open to be challenged before Civil Court in the light of bar created by Section 34 of the said Act. The learned Judge did not agree to the contentions of the Bank. 3. It is informed that, after the notice under Section 13(2) and its challenge in the said proceedings, Regular Civil Suit No.722/2006, the matter was taken up by the present respondent before this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 201/2009, wherein the Division Bench directed the revision applicant to consider the representation of the respondent in answer to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act. Pursuant to the directions of the L.P.A. Court, dated 18.10.2010, the Bank has indeed considered the representation and disposed of such representation. Now the remedy for the respondent plaintiff is before the learned Debts 3 C.R.A. NO.55/2007 Recovery Tribunal to challenge the action under Section13(2) or the orders under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act. Civil Suit would not have been the answer to challenge the said notice. Consequently, objection raised by the revision applicant to the maintainability of the suit was in tune and in the ordain of scheme of Securitisation Act. The learned Judge should not have entertained the suit as the jurisdiction is specifically barred in terms of Section 34 of the said Act. The other aspects between the parties about charging excessive interest or debiting other expenses is to be addressed by the competent authorities. Civil Revision Application is allowed. The suit moved by the respondent being Regular Civil Suit No. 722/2006 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded is not maintainable, permitted to be withdrawn, to be filed before the competent forum under the Securitisation Act. Rule made absolute to the extent as above. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE