1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.606 OF 2008 Archana w/o Santosh Gunjal, R/o-Gunjal Wasti, Kolhewadi Road, Sangamner, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Sangamner Merchant Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sangamner, Tq-Sangamner, Dist-Ahmednagar, Through its Manager and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. N.R. Bhavar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.,A.S. Bajaj Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 18TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2. The Petitioner takes exception to the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "the Securitisation Act") on the ground that in view of provisions of Section 31 (i), the Bank cannot proceed against the Petitioner and in respect of 31(g) of the Securitisation Act, the Bank is not entitled to take steps against the assets like house which is constructed on the agricultural land. 3. Shri. Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank has placed reliance on the following Judgments: i) Trade Well and another vs. Indian Bank and another, reported in 2007 (1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) Page 783, ii) Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court 3 (Coram: Naresh H. Patil and N.D. Deshpande, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.5581 of 2008 (Shri. Pantayya Irayya Diddi and others vs. The Sangamner Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another.) 4. Shri. Bajaj, learned counsel submits that in respect of house property the bank can very well proceed. There is alternate efficacious remedy available to the Petitioner. 5. We have perused the documents produced on record, the Judgments cited and the provisions of Section 13(2), 13(3), 31(i) and 31(g) of the Securitisation Act. Prima facie, we are convinced that the Bank has no right under the provisions of 31 (i) of the Securitisation Act to take steps against the assets namely agricultural land owned by the Petitioner. The Bank is therefore not entitled to take any steps against the 4 agricultural land under the Securitisation Act. 6. In respect of the house property, we find that the Bank could take steps under Securitisation Act for recovering the loan disbursed to the Petitioner. The Petitioner if desires to challenge the action of the Bank in respect of house property, then the Petitioner may resort to appropriate alternate remedy as available in law. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 7. In case the Petitioner approaches the D.R.T., the petitioner is entitled to take a plea regarding the pendency of this Petition seeking condonation of delay. In case such plea is taken, the D.R.T. may decide such application on its own merits if the Petitioner approaches the D.R.T. within four weeks from today. The parties to maintain status quo in respect of house property for four weeks from today. 5 . Authenticated copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Petitioner. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JUNE10/wp606.08