THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.2426 of 2007 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) The petitioner having availed the loan facility from the respondent Bank failed to repay the same. Hence, the respondent Bank issued notice, dated 24.05.2006, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’), and also the notice and sale notices, dated 07.10.2006 and 06.01.2007 under Rules 8(1) and 6(2) and 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 respectively. Challenging the said notices, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act reflects a sum of Rs.8 lakhs and odd as outstanding amount, whereas the sale notice reflects a sum of Rs.45 lakhs and odd and therefore, the respondent Bank without calculating the accurate amount issued the notices impugned, which is contrary to law. 4. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 12.02.2007, granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the sale notice, dated 06.01.2007, issued by the respondent Bank. The respondent-Bank filed WVMP No.2362 of 2008 along with a counter stating that in the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, the respondent has categorically mentioned the amount of Rs.45 lakhs and odd due as on 31.03.2006, but not Rs.8 lakhs and odd and that as the petitioner failed to repay the amount, the Bank issued further notices impugned by following the procedure and the Rules. It is stated that against the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The respondent-Bank issued notice, dated 24.05.2006, under Section 13(2) of the Act specifying an amount of Rs.45,79,788/- payable by the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice and that as he failed to repay the same, the respondent proceeded further by issuing the notices impugned and as such, it can be said that the respondent Bank is followed due procedure as contemplated under the Rules. Further, as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act against the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:22.02.2011 sj