THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.3049 of 2011 ORDER Questioning the action of respondent-Bank in issuing notice, dated 31.01.2011, under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 2. The petitioners availed the cash credit facility for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- from the respondent-Bank for the purpose of business. As they failed to repay the loan amount, the account has been classified as non-performing asset and the respondent issued notices, dated 20.10.2010 and 31.01.2011, under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, respectively. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no provision to issue notice under Section 13(4) of the Act by the respondent. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank contended that earlier, the possession of the secured property was taken over by the respondent after following the procedure under the Act and on payment of substantial amount, it was redelivered to the petitioners on 12.02.2010 and that as again they defaulted in repayment of the loan amount, the respondent has taken measures under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act. He further contended that the petitioners without availing the remedy by filing an application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, filed the present writ petition. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. SATYAWATI TONDON[1]. 6. A perusal of the record shows that after classifying the account of the petitioners as non-performing asset, the respondent took measures under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act and the possession of the secured property was taken on 12.10.2009. On payment of the substantial amount, the property was redelivered to the petitioners on 12.02.2010. As the petitioners have committed default in payment of the loan amount again, the respondent issued notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act. Therefore, the action taken by the respondent for recovery of its dues by issuing the said notices cannot be faulted. If the petitioners are aggrieved against the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, they have to avail the remedy by filing an application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal rather than filing the writ petition. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity on the part of the respondent in issuing the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:14.02.2011 sj [1] (2010)8 SCC 110