The petitioner, which is a manufacturing unit of MS Ingots,. castings and other still products, had taken loan of Rs.55 Lacs from the respondents-Punjab and Sind Bank under hypothecation after equitable mortgage in the year 2001 by way of cash credit facility.

2. The petitioner had been paying the amount of accrued interest and submitting the stock statement and other documents as prescribed by the Bank.

3. By letter dated 9.3.04 (Annexure-2), the petitioner was informed by the respondents-Bank that the sale proceeds as well as the stock statement have not been submitted and the same must be submitted to the Bank.

4. The petitioner submitted all the required documents and also explained that the delay was due to illness of the Director (Annexure-3). The petitioner requested the respondents-Bank to resume the transaction.

5. Suddenly the petitioner was served with a notice dated 29.11.04 (Annexure-8) from the respondents-Bank purportedly sent under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act, 2002'). The notice was addressed to

the petitioner and the guarantors. By the said notice the petitioner and the guarantors, jointly and severally, were asked to make the payment and discharge the liabilities amounting to Rs.51,05,383.88/with interest w.e.f. 1.11.04 with monthly rests, within 60 days from the receipt of the notice. It also mentioned that on failure of the same, the Bank shall take measures under the provisions of Chapter-III of the said Act, 2002 for recovery of the secured dues and in that case, the said persons shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of all costs and other expenses arising there-from.

6. Against the said notice the petitioner filed their reply stating, inter alia that the notice purportedly issued under Section 13(2) of the said Act, 2002 is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner's Unit has been running against the sanctioned limit and at no point of time the petitioner was intimated that his account has been declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). Further, even after the declaration of the account as NPA in March 2004, the petitioner was allowed to make transaction from the said account till November 2004 without any break. It has been stated that the petitioner had taken cash credit loan of Rs.55 Lacs on 12.1.01 for doing his business of manufacturing MS Ingots, castings and other steel products with interest @ 15.75 % per annum. Raw materials, finished and semi-finished goods of MS Ingots, plant, machinery and scraps were hypothecated. The loan was also secured by way of equitable mortgage in respect of the immovable properties. The Bank had sanctioned Bank Guarantee limit of Rs.15 Lacs as on 12.1.01, but the same was not utilized. It was well within the knowledge of the Bank that the petitioner's Unit has been running successfully. The interest payable to the Bank was being regularly paid within time. The Bank Officers, on the other hand, always put the petitioner into trouble. There was no occasion for issuing the notice under Section 13(2) of the said Act, 2002. No intimation was given to the petitioner regarding the proposed action and there was no occasion for sending such notice or approaching the Bank. The petitioner, thus, requested the Bank to recall the notice purportedly sent under Section 13(2) of the said Act, 2002.

7. When no order was passed on the said application, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6908/2004 challenging the said notice dated 29.11.04 sent under the said Act, 2002.

8. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents-Bank to consider the objection/representation filed by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order before proceeding under Section 13(4) of the said Act, 2002.

9. The petitioner filed representation dated 14.1.05 before the respondents-Bank regarding compliance of the said order of