1 wp1625.10.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1625 OF 2010 Alak Jyot Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. SBI Commercial and International Bank Limited & Ors. ...Respondents. Shri T.N. Tripathi i/by M/s. Tripathi & Co. for the Petitioners. Shri G.D. Utangale i/by M/s. Utangale & Co. for Respondent No.1. Shri S.A. Oak i/by M/s. Mahesh Menon & Co. for Respondent No.2 Smt. Kavita Anchan i/by M/s. M.V. Kini & Co. for Respondent No.4. Shri Mahesh Patil i/by M/s. V. Deshpande & Co. for Respondent No.6. None for Respondent Nos. 3 and 5. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 26th August, 2010 P.C.:- 1 By way of this Petition, the Petitioners have prayed that Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 be directed to restrain from dispossessing the Petitioners under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the Securitization Act). It is further prayed that the alleged act of dispossession may be set aside. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the 2 wp1625.10.sxw ssm Respondents that except Respondent No.1, none of the authorities have taken any steps regarding dispossession as on today. In view of the same, this petition against rest of the Respondents is not maintainable on the face of record. 2 So far as Respondent No.1 – SBI Commercial and International Bank Limited, is concerned, Mr. Utangale, the learned counsel states that the bank has already taken physical possession, but for a further period of one week from today, Respondent No.1 Bank will not take further steps in order to enable the Petitioner to approach the DRT in this behalf. The said statement is recorded. Respondent No.1 is directed to maintain the status- quo prevailing as on today for a period of one week from today. Respondent No.1 Bank shall act accordingly. 3 In the meantime, the Petitioners are at liberty to move before the DRT for getting appropriate relief from the DRT so far as respondent No.1 is concerned. There is nothing on record to show that any steps have been taken by the other Respondents against the Petitioners and in fact the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 states that Respondent No. 2 has not issued any notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. So far as Respondent No.6 is concerned, it is a co-operative Bank. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 states that notice under Section 3 wp1625.10.sxw ssm 156 of the Co-operative Societies Act has been issued to the Petitioner No. 17 and he has already lodged his objections which are under consideration. 4 The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 states that they have issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act to the petitioners and will adjudicate the said notice in accordance with law. None of the said Respondents have taken any further steps for taking possession and if any such steps are taken, it will be open to the petitioners to challenge the same in accordance with law by filing appropriate proceedings before the DRT or any other forum as deemed fit. As such we are not required to consider the petition against respondent Nos.2 to 11 at this stage. As stated above, Respondent No.1 is concerned, no further steps shall be taken for a period of one week from today, which we have recorded earlier. The Petitioner is at liberty either to approach DRT or any other forum available in accordance with law. 5 In view of what is stated above, the Petition is disposed of. It is clarified that this court has not adjudicated any claims based on the facts and the contentions of both the sides are kept open to be agitated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or before any other forum as available, in accordance with law. 4 wp1625.10.sxw ssm 6 Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Petitioners are not covered under the provisions of securitization Act, as they are neither the borrowers nor they are acquired any interest in the property in question. It will be open to the Petitioners to agitate this point in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the said point, we have not examined the same in this Petition. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)