JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren J.- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. A number of grounds have been raised by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, challenging the e-auction sale notice issued by the respondent Bank, dated 18.1.2014. 3. In similar circumstances, this court had passed an order, dated 20.2.2014, in W.P.No.34376 of 2013 etc. (batch), wherein e-auction sale notices had been challenged. In the said order, dated 20.2.2014, this Court had upheld the validity of the e-auction sale procedures adopted by the respondent Banks concerned, while bringing the secured assets for sale, in discharge of the liabilities of the petitioner. As such, the issues raised for the consideration of this court, in the present writ petition, are covered by the decision of this court, dated 20.2.2014. 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 such circumstances, we find it appropriate to dismiss the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition No.1 of 2014 is closed. No costs.