THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.1697 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) The petitioners and respondent Nos.3 and 4 have mortgaged their properties including the landed property of respondent No.5 company towards security for the loan granted by the first respondent-Bank. While so, the first respondent Bank issued notice, dated 02.06.2010, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) directing the petitioners and others to pay an amount of Rs.1,44,66,570/- within 60 days from the date of the notice, and thereafter, it also issued notice, dated 14.09.2010, under Section 13(4) of the Act . The petitioners state that though the first respondent Bank itself informed them vide letter, dated 20.05.2010 with regard to payment of the first instalment, it issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, within a period of fifteen days from the commencement of repayment of instalments classifying the asset as non-performing asset before the stipulated period for classification is over. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the account can be classified as non-performing asset under Section 2(o) of the Act, only after 180 days from the date of default of payment, but in the present case, the first respondent informed about the payment of first instalment only on 20.05.2010 and immediately, issued Section 13(2) notice on 02.06.2010. Thus, he prays to set aide the said notice. 3. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent Bank informed the petitioners through letter, dated 20.05.2010, that in view of the irregularities committed by the petitioners, the account was converted as Non-performing Asset. He also submitted that the actual loan was sanctioned in 2008, but at the request of the petitioners, it was rescheduled. 4. From a perusal of the letter, dated 20.05.2010, it is clear that the first respondent Bank informed the petitioners that the term loan is to be repaid in 72 equal monthly instalments of Rs.3,64,000/- commencing from April, 2010 and that as they failed to pay the instalments from April, 2010, the account has been classified as non-performing asset. Therefore, it can be inferred that the first respondent issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 02.06.2010 within fifteen days from the date of the information through letter, dated 20.05.2010 and the account has been classified as Non-performing Asset even before expiry of 180 days from the date of default of payment. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that Section 13(2) notice is liable to be quashed. 5. Accordingly, the writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. However, the first respondent-Bank is at liberty to issue fresh notice and take appropriate steps in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:01.02.2011 sj