JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the ‘Possession Notice’ dated 8th July, 2021 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued by the Chief Manager-cum-Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda (Jamshedpur Region), Doranda, Ranchi, the respondent no. 2.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition.

3. The petitioner, who is the widow of borrower late Sudarsan Prasad, has raised several contentions while challenging the ‘Possession Notice’ dated 8th July, 2021 issued by the respondent no. 2 including that in spite of repeated request, the complete details of home loan account amounting to Rs. 8 lacs, C.C. facility at Kuju Branch, Ramgarh of the respondent-Bank for Rs. 21 lacs and restructuring of facility to the extent of Rs. 2,25,000/- by the said Branch were not given to her husband who subsequently died on 24th April, 2020. The petitioner has also claimed the payments made on different dates against the aforesaid accounts has not been taken into consideration by the respondent-Bank. The further contention of the petitioner is that though the notice dated 3rd April, 2021 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2002’) had shown Rs. 14,09,015/- plus un-applied interest as outstanding dues against the borrower, yet the notice dated 8th July, 2021 issued under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 read with Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules 2002’] has arbitrarily mentioned outstanding dues of Rs. 30,69,329.98/- against the aforesaid accounts.

4. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raises a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner representing the borrower (her deceased husband) has efficacious remedy against the ‘Possession Notice’ dated 8th July, 2021 issued under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 read with Rule 8(1) of the Rules, 2002 by preferring an application under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 110, has held as under:

“42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If Respondent 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression “any person” used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective.”

6. In the case of Standard Chartered Bank vs. Noble Kumar and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 620, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

“27. The “appeal” under Section 17 is available to the borrower against any measure taken under Section 13(4). Taking possession of the secured asset is only one of the measures that can be taken by the secured creditor. Depending upon the nature of the secured asset and the terms and conditions of the security agreement, measures other than taking the possession of the secured asset are possible under Section 13(4). Alienating the asset either by lease or sale, etc. and appointing a person to manage the secured asset are some of those possible measures. On the other hand, Section 14 authorises the Magistrate only to take possession of the property and forward the asset alon