1. The petitioner is challenging the notice dated 15.9.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 13 of the SERFAESI Act seeking to recover a sum of Rs.72,00,571/- from the petitioner and respondent No.3 arising in respect of loan transaction between 3rd respondent and 1st respondent.

2. Brief facts leading to this petition are as under:

G.K. Shantha Raju proprietor of 3rd respondent M/s Vinayaka Electrical Enterprises availed credit facility for his business from 1st respondent/State Bank of Mysore. The loan was availed to the turn of Rs.14,50,000/- in the year 1997. The petitioner herein stood as guarantor for the said loan transaction. Since 3rd respondent initiated proceedings for recovery in OA.No.67/2000 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. In the said proceedings, proprietory concern of 3rd respondent herein was 1st defendant, 2nd defendant was G.K. Shantha Raju himself and 3rd defendant was petitioner herein. In the said proceedings 1st defendant M/s. Vinayaka Electrical Enterprises and its proprietor Shantharaju 2nd defendant were represented by common advocate. So far as 3rd defendant/petitioner herein was represented by a different advocate.

3. In the said proceedings, besides the aforesaid three defendants there were three other defendants who also stood as guarantors to the credit facility availed by defendants 1 and 2. During 2004 there was negotiation between creditor bank and principal borrower, who were respectively applicant and 2nd defendant in OA.No.67/2000. They entered into settlement, wherein 2nd defendant agreed to settle the entire arrears due from him to applicant by paying a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-in one lump-sum against its claim in the said application. In that behalf, a joint memo was also filed by ban and principal borrower. The memo which was filed by them before DRT was referred to Lok Adalath. When the matter came up before Lok Adalath. Bank entered appearance through its officer and its counsel on record. On behalf of defendants only 2nd principal borrower entered appearance before Lok Adalath along with his counsel. Both counsel filed joint memo, wherein 2nd defendant in OA.67/2000 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-to applicant Bank in full and final settlement of all the claim made by bank against him in the said application.

4. Accordingly, a compromise petition was also filed by them before Lok Adalath, wherein under the terms and conditions of compromise petition, principal borrower was required to pay entire agreed amount of Rs.20,00,000/- within one year, falling which he would pay entire claim made in the application by bank with interest as claimed therein. By taking the said compromise petition on record, Lok Adalath closed the application filed by bank. Pursuant to that a recovery certificate was also issued by the Recovery Officer of DRT on 23.2.2004. It is seen that pursuant to the recovery certificate issued by Recovery Officer. DRT, principal borrower did not repay the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as agreed.

5. Therefore, the bank thereafter initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the SERFAESI Act for recovery of its entire claim made in the application in terms of compromise arrived at between principal borrower and itself in OA.No.67/2000 as agreed in the compromise petition. The issuance of notice under Section 13 of the SERFAESI Act was independent of the judgment and decree passed in OA. No. 67/2000 pursuant to the compromise entered into between creditor and principal borrower before Lok Adalath in OA.No.67/2000. Incidentally notice issued by bank under Section 13 was issued not only against principal borrower but against all other guarantors including petitioner.

6. Petitioner being aggrieved by issue of notice under Section 13 of the SERFAESI Act has come up in this writ petitioner impugning the said notice dated 15.9.2009 on the ground that he was party to the transaction between creditor and principal borrower as on the date when princ