ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4865 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 4865 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 4865 OF 2008 M/s.Josika Marketing Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Punjab & Maharashtra Co-Op.Bank Ltd. ...Respondent. Mr.R.B.Upadhyay for the Petitioner. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 22nd July, 2008 : 22nd July, 2008 : 22nd July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . By the impugned order, the arbitrator, who was appointed under Section 84 of Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act-2002, rejected the Petitioner’s application under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The Petitioner by filing the aforesaid application challenged the maintainability of arbitration proceeding initiated by Respondent. The main contention is that the Respondent Bank has taken action under provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act-2002 (for short, "Securitisation Act") and taken the possession of the assets belonging ( 2 ) to the Petitioner and therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 13(10) of the Securitisation Act the bank can approach only for recovery of balance amount to the appropriate court. 3. Mr.Upadhyay, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner does not dispute that the Respondent Bank can approach either of the authorities. However, his submission is that the same can be done for the purpose of recovery of balance amount as contemplated under Section 13 (10) of Securitisation Act. 4. Mr. Upadhyay, is unable to make any positive statement whether the assets recovered by the Respondent Bank are sold or not. In my opinion, the Petitioner’s contention that the proceedings before the appropriate court can only lie for recovery of balance amount can be considered at the stage of final hearing of the proceedings before the Arbitrator. I do not find any error in the impugned order, in view of the settled position that the Bank can proceed under both the enactments viz. the Securitisation Act and the Multi-state Co-operative Act-2002. In the facts and circumstances, I dispose of this Writ Petition by passing the following order:- ( 3 ) O R D E R R D E R R D E R 1. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 2. The Petitioner, however, is at liberty to raise issue under Section 13(10) of the Securitisation Act, regarding the balance amount at the time of final hearing of the matter, before the learned Arbitrator. ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)