1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 573 OF 2010 (Tirupati Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Bhagwan Balaji Khapre) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 29, 2010. Heard Shri Meghe, learned counsel for the petitioner - Creditor and Ms. Anita Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent – borrower. The petitioner – Bank has issued notice under Section 13 of Securitization Act on 08.03.2003 for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,00,977/-. The said notice has been replied on 09.04.2003 and respondent – borrower is stated to have given his no objection for exhausting remedy under Section 13 of Securitization Act. Thereafter Dispute No. 1001 of 2006 has been filed before Cooperative Court at Nagpur under Section 91 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act for recovery of Rs.4,97,000/-. Pending that dispute, further steps under Section 13 were taken by issuing a notice for sale on 09.11.2009. From that notice, it appears that possession under Section 13(4) has been taken on 01.08.2003. In this background, the respondent – borrower filed application for stay before Cooperative Court and Cooperative Court has after noticing the facts restrained bank from proceeding further with that sale. 2 Shri Meghe, learned counsel argues that writ petition is required to be filed as Cooperative Appellate Court is not functioning and as amount has now exceeded Rs. Five lakhs. The balance amount needs to be recovered under Section 91. He has pointed out that the market value of property put to sale is not more than Rs. Five lakhs. Ms. Gupta, learned counsel, on the other hand, states that two remedies for same purpose have been resorted to and she further points out that in this situation, the Cooperative Appellate Court is available and hence this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction. The perusal of papers clearly show that the dispute before the Cooperative Court as filed is not for recovery of balance amount. The amount in balance can be ascertained only after sale takes place and the petitioner finds that the consideration is less than the recovery by it. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter as remedy of filing appeal before the Cooperative Appellate Court is available to the petitioner. The said appeal is already reported to be filed. Hence, the proceedings in that appeal are expedited. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.