JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition is directed assailing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("Act, 2002") 2. The case credit facility was extended to the petitioner on creating security interest by mortgaging the property but when he failed to repay the outstanding loan/regular installments, account of the petitioner who is principal borrower became NPA and notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 dated 21.10.2011 came to be served upon him, pursuant thereto he submitted objection under Section 13 (3A) of the Act, 2002 which has been examined and decided by the respondent-bank and decision thereof was communicated-bank and decision thereof was communicated to the petitioner vide Annx. P3 dated 13.12.2011. It appears that thereafter a further notice was served by the petitioner through his counsel and that too came to be rejected on 4.1.2012 (Annx. P5). 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was always willing to settle the outstanding dues in one time settlement scheme but opportunity was not afforded to him. 4. After the notice served upon him under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 dated 21.10.2011, the petitioner for one or the other way is raising objections but he has neither shown his willingness nor has deposited any penny against the outstanding dues which the respondent-bank disclosed in their notice dated 21.10.2011 and after his written objection submitted under Section 13(3A) of the Act, 2002 was decided by the bank certainly action can be taken against him by the financial institution in terms of Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002. 5. The submission made with regard to willingness shown is nothing but appears to be a lame excuse which reflects from the material which was come on record that he is raising objection but has never willing to repay what the financial institution disclosed in its notice impugned herein. 6. In the light of effective remedy available to the petitioner under Section 17 of the Act, this Court is not inclined to exercise its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. Consequently the petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. However the petitioner will be at liberty to avail the statutory remedy available to him under the law.Petition Dismissed. *******