Contending that the first respondent has issued a fresh notice under section 13[2] of the SARFAESI Act, when proceedings are pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in respect of the earlier notice under section 13[2], the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

2.Heard Mr.Bharatha Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Kalyanaraman, learned counsel for the respondents.

3.Admittedly, a notice under section 13[2] was issued on 210. 2002 and a possession notice was also issued under section 13[4] on 01.07.2004. As against the said possession notice, the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of an appeal under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. A conditional order of stay is stated to have been passed in the said appeal and the petitioner claims to have complied with the conditional order. The appeal is pending consideration still before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

4.At this stage, the first respondent has issued a second notice under section 13[2].

Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the notice under section 13[2] on the short ground that the first respondent is not entitled to keep on issuing notices under section 13[2] repeatedly, especially when the previous notice under section 13[2] and the possession notice under section 13[4] are under challenge in a regularly filed appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

5.I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6.The first notice under section 13[2] issued on 210. 2002, contained two schedules, with Schedule-1 containing the description of 8 items of immovable properties and Schedule-2 containing the list of hypothecated movable properties. When possession notice under section 13[4] was issued on 01.07.2004, the said possession notice contained only the description of four immovable properties leaving out the remaining four out the total of 8 items of immovable properties covered by the notice under section 13[2]. As against possession notice dated 01.07.2004, covering only four properties, the petitioner has already gone before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and obtained a conditional order not to proceed with the auction sale of those properties, in S.A.No.20/2004 dated 112. 2004 [later re-numbered as S.A.No.15/2007 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai].

7.When the appeal is still pending consideration before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the first respondent has issued the notice impugned in the writ petition under section 13 [2], dated 112. 2006 in respect of the remaining four properties which were left out under the possession notice dated 01.07.2004.

8.Mr.D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that section 13[2] of the SARFAESI Act speaks only about notice and not about notices and that therefore, it is not open to the first respondent to keep on issuing notices under section 13[2] in a piecemeal manner. Section 13[2] reads as follows:-

"13[2]:Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any instalment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section [4]."

9.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the plain language used in the section refers only to "notice in writing", there is no scope for enlarging the same to mean "notices in writing".

10.However, I am unable to countenance the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that under section 13[2] of the General Clauses Act