The central legal point established in the judgment is that once a bank opts to proceed under the SARFAESI Act, the defaulter can only avail the remedy provided under the Act and cannot approach any other authority not recognized under the Act.

1. Counsel for the parties are in agreement that four writ petitions bearing civil Writ Petition Nos.21328, 21556, 21572 and 21330 of 2008 can be decided by one common order, as on facts and law these writ petitions are similar, except that respondent no.2 in all the four writ petitions is different.

2. In these writ petitions, petitioner-Bank has approached for setting aside impugned order dated 5.2.2008, Annexure-P5 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalandhar. Before the controversy is determined, it is essential to advert to the facts of the case.

3. Counsel for the parties are further in agreement that for adjudication of these writ petitions, facts can be gathered from Civil writ Petition No.21328 of 2008. Respondent No.2 availed cash credit limit of Rs. one lac in the year 1994 from the petitioner-Bank by way of equitable mortgage. On default committed in re-payment of the loan, loan account of respondent No.2 was declared as non-performing asset. Case of the petitioner-Bank is that under Sec.2 (1) (c) (v) of the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as, sarfaesi Act) the Co-operative Bank is competent to issue demand notice and repossess the property. In consonance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, on 20.4.2007 demand notice under Sec.13 (2)was issued to respondent No.2 and his two brothers. Copy of the demand notice is Annexure-P1. The demand notice states that on 31.1.2007 the amount outstanding against respondent No.2 is Rs.3,89,898/-. Thereafter possession notice Annexure-P2 was issued and inventory and panchnama were also prepared. The copy of possession notice was published in a newspaper ekta Lehar. On 30.12.2007, Annekure-P4, possession-cum-sale notice (by Public Tender) was issued. Aggrieved respondent No.2 approached the deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies by filing a petition under Sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as, the Act) read with Rule 51 of the Punjab Co-operative societies Rules, 1963 for setting aside the claim of petitioner-Bank to the tune of Rs.3,89,898/-.

4. Ms. Jyoti Sareen appearing for the petitioner-Bank has stated that Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalandhar has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute under the sarfaesi Act. Respondent No.2 if aggrieved could only approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Sec.17 (1) of sarfaesi Act by filing an appeal. It has been stated that by issuance of notification on 28.1.2003 petitioner-Co-operative Bank was competent to invoke SARFAESI Act as under Sec.2 (1) (c) (v) of the SARFAESI act, the Bank which can invoke SARFAESI act is the one which the Central Government by notification may specify. She state that a notification was issued on 28.1.2003 and the central Government, specified the Co-operative Bank as the one Bank which is entitled to act under SARFAESI Act.

5. This matter now has been concluded by the judgment of Honble Apex Court in greater Bombay Co-op. Bank Ltd. V/s. United yarn Tex (P) Ltd. and others, (2007) 6 SCC 236 : (AIR 2007 SC 1584 ). This Court is of the view that once the Bank has opted to proceed against the defaulter under the sarfaesi Act, the defaulter can only avail remedy which is provided under the sarfaesi Act and cannot approach any other authority which is not recognised under the SRFAESI Act. Para 41 of Greater bombay Co-op. Bank Ltd. s case (supra) read as under :

"41. Parliament had enacted the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("the Securitisation Act")which shall be deemed to have come into force on 21-6-2002. In Sec.2 (d) of the securitisation Act same meaning is given to the words "banking company" as is assigned to it in clause (e) of Sec.5 of the BR Act. Again the definition of "banking company" was lifted from the BR Act but while defining "b