Judgment M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard Mr. G. Kandha Vadivelan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as Mr. Pala. Ramasamy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It is found that, in the present Writ Petition, certain issues had arisen, relating to the action initiated by the respondent bank, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. Even though various grounds have been raised by the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the petitioner ought to make his claims, relating to the issue arising for the consideration of this Court, 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 petitioner to raise all the grounds available to him, 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 , had made it clear that the scope of interference by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is limited in nature. It had 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 had 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 such circumstances, we find it appropriate to dismiss the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.