Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Notice on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 to 3 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Vinay Shankar, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no. 4 and Sri Manish Jauhari, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the recovery proceedings initiated against him with a prayer not to adopt coercive method against him. In this matter, learned counsel for opposite parties informs that the proceedings under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 have already been initiated and the Bank has already proceeded under Section 13 (2) of the Act.
Sri. Manish Jauhari, learned counsel for opp. party no. 4 submits that so far as impugned order is concerned, opp. party no. 4 has nothing to do with the case. In view of the above, we are of the view that the same can be challenged before the Tribunal constituted for the purpose. Hence, no interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the proper remedy available to him. Order Date :- 22.6.2010 ashok