Judgment M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner challenges the impugned notice issued by the respondent-bank, dated 25.9.2013, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and the consequential possession notice issued, under Appendix 4, Rule 8(1), under Section 13(12) of the Act, read with Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, dated 23.11.2013. 3. Even though various grounds have been raised on behalf of the petitioners, we are of the considered view that the petitioners ought to make their claims, relating to the issues arising for the consideration of this Court, in the present Writ Petition, before the appropriate forum, as provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. We make it clear that it would be open to the petitioners to raise all the grounds available to them, before the appropriate forum, as per law. 4. It is noted that the Supreme Court, in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 , has made it clear that the scope of interference by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is limited in nature. It has also made it clear that the statutory schemes provided under the specific enactments should not be defeated by the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by this Court. As such, the alternative remedies provided to the petitioner, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, ought not to be interfered with, by this Court, by invoking its writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has reiterated the said position of law, in a recent decision, in GM, Sri Siddeshwara Co-op. Bank Ltd. V. Sri Ikbal, reported in (2013) 6 MLJ 571 (SC). 5. In view of the above, the petitioners are permitted to move the appropriate forum, provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. If the petitioners approach the appropriate forum, the appropriate forum shall entertain such matter and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law. 6. 5. In view of the above, the petitioners are permitted to move the appropriate forum, provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. If the petitioners approach the appropriate forum, the appropriate forum shall entertain such matter and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law. 6. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to dismiss the present Writ Petition, with the observations and directions incorporated in this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. M.P.No.1 of 2013 is closed.