1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. W. P. No. 2662 of 2008. [M/s Shritram Industrial Corporation Vs. Union of India and others]. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A. M. Ghare, Advocate appears for petitioner. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 1st December, 2008. Heard the Learned Counsel Mr. Ghare for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short The Securitization Act). Admittedly, as of now, the measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act have not yet been taken, and perhaps on account of the order of status quo passed by this Court on 27-6-2008. If an action under Section 13(4) of the 2 Securitization Act is taken by the Respondent Bank, the petitioner has the remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the said Act, and the appeal has to be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur. When such a statutory remedy of appeal is available, we do not see any reason to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, the petition is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and we direct that as and when the action under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act is taken by the Respondent bank, it shall not take physical possession of the mortgaged property for a period of two weeks from the date of such order. The order of status quo stands vacated. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/