1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.1805, 4267 and 4268 of 2008. M/s Arean Agro Industries Prop. Amit Gopal Gupta. Shri Penmachha v Varma and another M/s Jai Construction thro. Its Partner and others v. 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. S. Chandurkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Gauri Venkatraman, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S. K. Mishra, Asstt. Solicitor General of India for R-1. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 18th October, 2008. 1. In all these petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the notice to take over the possession of the property moveable/immoveable, and as issued notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (For short the Securitization 2 Act), and therefore, they are being decided by a common order. 2. The petitioners have also contended that the notification issued by the Government of India through the Ministry of Finance on 28-1-2003 is also a subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.17573 of 2007. 3. So far as the notification dated 28-1-2003 is concerned, the Aurangabad Bench of this Court has upheld the same in Writ Petition No. 267 of 2007, and the said decision is under challenge before the Apex Court, and the interim order passed by this High Court has been continued. 4. The petitioners claim to have approached directly to this Court only on the ground that the Order passed by this Court (Aurangabad Bench) is a subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court. 3 5. Undoubedly, the order passed under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization Act, is an appealable order under Section 17 of the said Act. In such an appeal, the petitioners also have the remedy to file an application for interim relief/injunction as has been prayed for in this petition, pending final decision in the SLP before the Supreme Court. 6. When a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners, a writ petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution, and more so when the notification dated 28-1-2003 has been upheld by this Court. Hence, the petitions are rejected as not maintainable, and the petitioners are relegated to the remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 7. If such appeals are filed within a period of two weeks from today, the period of pendency of these petitions shall be taken into consideration for condonation 4 of delay if any. 8. The application for interim relief/injunction to be filed in the appeal shall be considered on their own merits and without being influenced by the Order of status quo passed in these petitions. 9. The Order of status quo granted earlier to continue for a further period of two weeks. JUDGE JUDGE //Muley//.