IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 211/2010 M/s Bharat Collection & another ..vs.. Industrial Bank Ltd. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri Anand Jaiswal, advocate for petitioner CORAM:S.A.BOBDE & SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE :15 th January, 2010 Petitioner has challenged the notice dated 14.12.2009 under section 13(2) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcement of Security Interest Act [hereinafter referred to as an Act]. According to the petitioner, the notice issued, is completely illegal in view of the fact that the petitioner has not executed any mortgage of the property. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly accepted the fact that the petitioner has not, in his objection submitted pursuant to the notice under section 13(2), claimed that he has not executed a mortgage. Having regard to this position and further having regard to the fact that the petitioner is entitled to respond to the notice by preferring an objection contemplated by section 13(3)(a), we do not consider it proper to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE smp