D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not arguing his case on a high-pitch, as he is aware about Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( in short "the Act, 2002"), and is ready and willing to avail the efficacious alternative remedy, available under the Act, 2002, nonetheless, it is vehemently submitted that the principal amount of loan was Rs.3,00,000/- and as per Annexure 1 and Annexure 2 to the memo of present petition, the said amount has already been deposited, but, still the bank is demanding higher amount, as per the notice, issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 and, therefore, a very limited prayer is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for fifteen days, let the respondents stay their hands and they may not compel the petitioner to vacate the house, in question, and within the aforesaid fifteen days, they petitioner will approach the Tribunal under the Act, 2002.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has vehemently submitted that this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court, in view of efficacious remedy, available to the petitioner, under the provisions of the Act, 2002, especially when enough warnings were given to the petitioner, by way of notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act, 2002, dated July 25, 2007 and again a notice was issued under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, 2002, dated April 15, 2009. Petitioner could have approached the Tribunal under the Act, 2002. Thus, enough time has already been granted to the petitioner, even after invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, 2002, by the Bank, nonetheless, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that, looking to the status of the petitioner and looking to the fact that his residential house is in question, fifteen days time will make no much difference to the respondent-Bank. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that if the petitioner approaches the Tribunal within fifteen days from tomorrow, they will not take any coercive action against the petitioner for fifteen days from today, but, if no application is preferred and no stay is obtained from the competent court or the Tribunal, viz. from 16th day onwards from tomorrow, statement of the learned counsel for the respondents will not be binding upon the respondent-Bank.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid submissions and looking to the fact that a sizable amount has already been deposited by the petitioner and looking to the amount, already deposited by the petitioner, as per Annexure 1 and Annexure 2 to the memo of present petition, and as the residential house of the petitioner is involved and looking to the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents, I hereby dispose of the present writ petition, in view of the statement, made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner must avail the efficacious alternative remedy, available to him under the provisions of the Act, 2002, within the aforesaid period of fifteen days from tomorrow. From 16th day onwards from tomorrow, statement of the learned counsel for the respondents will not be binding to the respondent-Bank.;