Order M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 3. It is found that, in the present Writ Petitions, certain issues had arisen, relating to the action initiated by the respondent banks concerned, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 4. In a recent pronouncement, the First Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider a similar issue, in a batch of Writ Petitions, in W.P.[MD].No.3167 of 2010, etc., [batch], in its order, dated 21.11.2013, wherein it had been held as follows:- “3. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. We have also perused the records available. Even though various grounds have been raised on behalf of the parties concerned, we are of the considered view that the parties concerned ought to make their claims, relating to the issues arising for the consideration of this Court, in the above matters, 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 parties concerned to raise all the grounds available to them, before the appropriate forum, as per law. ....... 6. 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 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. 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). 7. In view of the above, the aggrieved parties are permitted to move the appropriate forum provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which, it would be open to the respondent banks concerned to proceed further, as per the relevant provisions of law, including the provisions contained in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. If the aggrieved parties approach the appropriate forum in time, as specified in this order, the appropriate forum shall entertain such matters, on merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same, without raising the issue of delay, in the filing of the matters. We also make it clear that the parties concerned including the respondent banks, shall maintain status quo, as on today, for a period of eight weeks, from today. Further, it is seen that some of the parties to the present proceedings had complied with the conditional orders, by paying or depositing certain amounts of money. If it is so, the same shall also be taken into consideration, by the appropriate forum, while deciding the matters before it. 8. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to dismiss the above matters, with the observations and directions, incorporated in this order. Accordingly, the above matters stand dismissed.” 5. Applying the said decision, cited supra, to the facts of the present case, we find it appropriate to dismiss the Writ Petitions. Accordingly, the present Writ Petitions stand dismissed, on the same terms mentioned in the order, dated 21.11.2013, made in W.P.[MD].No.3167 of 2010, etc., [batch]. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.