@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH : BILASPUR Wn't Petiu'on (C) No. 2425 of 2009 Pctitioners 1. P. R. Universal Power 6L Steels (P) Limited (A Company Incorporated Under Companies Act 1956), having its registered omce at Plot No. 11-A, “Shree Hari Om Smin‘ "’ New Khursipar, Opp. Nehru High School, Bhjlai 490012. Ram Das Agrawal, aged 58 yeats, S/o Late Shri Kimdima] Agrawal, Director, P.R.Um'versa1 Power 8r. Steel (P) Limited. Abhishek Aglawal, aged 34 years, S/o Shri Ram Das Agrawal, Director, P.R. Univeisal Power 85 Steel (P) Limited. No. 2 8t. 3 residence of Plot No. 11-A, New Khursipar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Respondents 1. State Bank of India, thmugh The Chief General Manager, Local head O$ce, Hosangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) State Bank of India, Thxough Authorised omcer, Stressd Asset Management Branch, Local Head Omce, Ground Floor, Hosangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) Versus 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Industrial Estate Branch, Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) Vineet Agrawal, aged 40 yrs, S/o Shrl Deendayal Agawal, Prop. \Shree Balaji Traders, Street No. 5, B Market, Sector—II, Post Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India) (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shn' S. K. Beriwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3. / o R D E R {oral} ( Passed on this 9th day ofJuly, 2009 ) Heard. » The petin'oners are qnestioning the legality and validity of the order dated 22.4.2008 (Annexuxe P/2), passed by the respondent] State Bank of India, under the provisions of Section 13(4) of» the Securitisation and Reconstrucu'on of Financial / Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act, 2002’), on several gmunds. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3, relying on a decision of this Comt in Dauji Farms & 0ts.(M/s) vs. Dena Bank & Anrl and a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Panchanan Subudhi { dt. 2nd Mamh, 2009 in Civil Appeal No. 1355 of 2009) submits that Section 17 of the Act, 2002 provides for the statutory remedy of appeal against the order passed under Sections 13(4) to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Thus, in View of the availability of statutory alternau've remedy, this petition is not maintainable. In View of the foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable- on account of availability of the statutory alternative remedy under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, 2002. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to avail the statutory alternative remedy, if so advised. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, when the interim relief was granted on 11.5.2009 to the eh‘ect that the petinoners shagl not be dispossessed from the residential property, if already not dispossessed, till the next date of hearing, as prayed, the interim order shall continue for a period of 15 (fifteen) days nom today to enable the petitioner to take appropriate steps, if so advised. rnnl Sd/- n Satish K. Agnihotri xi Judge r ‘\. l (2009 (11) MPJR—CG 31 7, _, \