B. Rajendran, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the third respondent from proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 without passing any order on the objection of the petitioner sent her through advocate on 08.03.2010.

2. The petitioner would contend that she is doing business in the name and style of Kavitha Agencies. The petitioner sought cash credit (stock) facilities upto Rs.50 lakhs from the second respondent/bank. The bank also sanctioned the said facility on 30.03.2009 for which the husband of the petitioner Selvarajan deposited the title deeds of the immovable properties belonged to him as Collateral security for Rs.42,00,000/-. Thereafter, in January 2010, the petitioner received a notice from the bank stating that there is a balance of Rs.65,37,484.74p i.e., the petitioner had over drawn the account to the tune of Rs.15,37,484.74 p. The petitioner would mainly contend that the Manager of the bank by name Nagarajan had taken Rs.13,27,000/-which is beyond the sanctioned limit and there is no possibility at all for her to avail the above said amount as no sanction was made by the higher authorities to avail the overdraft more than the sanctioned limit. The petitioner would further contend that she never issued any cheque to her husband Selvarajan and she came to know that the two blank cheques were sent to the second respondent bank on 15.10.2009, through the staff of the petitioner to withdraw Rs.20,000/- each if the fund is available and it appears that the Branch Manager by name Nagarajan had forged the above cheques, filled the amount and took the cash for himself after handing over Rs.40,000/-to her staff for which the petitioner has also give a complaint to the local police and also sent a notice dated 25.01.2010 to the bank. Subsequently, a notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.66,14,964.74p for which an objection was sent by her on 08.03.2010 stating that as the amount of Rs.13,27,000/-was defrauded by the Branch Manager of the bank, the question of over due does not arise. The only contention made by the petitioner was that even before the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act, she made a complaint to the respondents on 25.01.2010, and further she also made an objection on 08.03.2010 but the respondents 1 and 2 did not pass any order or rejected the objection, therefore, she would contend that the bank should not proceed with the SARFAESI Act without disposing of her objection dated 08.03.2010.

3. The respondents/bank filed a detailed counter stating that by letter dated 09.10.2009, the petitioner requested the bank to grant temporary over draft to the extent of 20% above the existing sanctioned limit of Rs.50 lakhs under the cash credit facility and thereafter, she issued bearer cheque bearing Nos. 162036 and 162037 dated 15.10.2009 for Rs.9,50,000/- and Rs.3,77,000/-respectively in favour of her husband and the same was honoured only on business gesture at the request of the petitioner and therefore, the balance exceeded the overdraft facility. In regard to the allegations against the bank manager, a detailed notice was sent on 15.03.2010 denying the same and it was drawn only by her husband. As the petitioner has not complied with the payment schedule, the notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act was issued to the petitioner for which the petitioner did not sent any reply or objection, however another legal notice dated 08.03.2010 was received from the counsel for the petitioner which was verbatim as the earlier notice dated 25.01.2010. Therefore, for the notice dated 08.03.2010, a reply has been sent through the bank counsel on 15.03.2010. In fact, the reply dated 15.03.2010 was sent only in respect of the objections given by the petitioner for the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act. As the contents in the notice dated 15.03.201