The main legal point established in the judgment is the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, which the court emphasized in dismissing the writ petition.

S. Manikumar, J.

1. Challenging the auction notice dated 19.02.2018, instant writ petition has been filed for a certiorarified mandamus, to quash the same and consequently to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.02.2015 for one time settlement.

2. Petitioner has availed, the following cash credit facilities.

(i)	2011- Rs.2.50 Crores	CC (Cash Credit)
(ii)	2011- Rs.1.00 Crores	ILC (Inland Letter of Credit)
(iii)	2012 - Rs.2.50 Crores	CC (Cash Credit)
(iv)	2012 - Rs.1.60 Crores	TL (Sanction of Rs.2.80 Crs.)
(v)	2012 - Rs.1.00 Crores	C.C. (Cash Credit)
	Total - Rs.8.60 Crores

3. Petitioner has offered the following properties, as security.

(i) Item No.1: Vacant land measuring about 445.15 Sq.m or 0.11 acres. Value of Rs.119.79/- Lakhs.

(ii) Item No.2: The Dwelling House Measuring land about 3600 Sq.ft. and building 7200 Sq.ft. - Value of Rs.205.00/- Lakhs

(iii) Item No.3: Vacant land Measuring about 12.07 acres of land and Factory building about 1,00,000 sq.ft - Value of Rs.900.00 Lakhs Situated at Dindigul District.

(iv) Item No.4: Vacant land Measuring about 4,800 Sq.ft - Value of Rs.12.00/- Lakhs.

(v) Item No.5: Vacant land measuring about 3735 Sq.Ft. Value of Rs.11.00/- Lakhs.

4. Total loan availed is Rs.8.60 Crores. According to the petitioner, the total value of the property mortgaged with the bank, is Rs.14 Crores. So far Rs.2 Crores have been paid towards interest till the bank declared the account as NPA on 10.10.2013. Notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, dated 07.10.2013 has been received on 21.10.2003. Within a period of 60 days, petitioner has sent a representation under Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 21.12.2013. Without considering the representation/objection in proper perspective, bank has proceeded to send a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 24.12.2013. Break up details were not given. Again on 11.01.2014, bank has issued another possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and published the same in the newspapers. E-auction notice dated 27.02.2015, was also issued and published.

5. Being aggrieved by the possession notice dated 11.01.2014, petitioner has filed S.A.No.55 of 2014 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore and prayed for stay of the same. After considering the submission of the parties, vide order dated 28.03.2014, the tribunal ordered status quo in respect of Item No.B of the e-auction sale notice dated 27.02.2014 till 04.04.2014. In respect of other items, the tribunal permitted the bank to go ahead with the e-auction proceedings.

6. Based on the proceedings dated 28.03.2014 in SA No.55 of 2014, Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and averments with regard to the procedural irregularities in issuing the possession notice dated 11.01.2014, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, had thought it fit to order status quo in respect of Item No.B of the e-auction sale notice dated 27.02.2014 and in such circumstances, the impugned sale notice dated 19.02.2018, fixing the auction on 27.03.2018, is illegal and liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs has been deposited in the loan account. But the bank declined to regularise the loan account.

8. Heard Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

9. True that the tribunal while considering I.A.No.330 of 2014 in S.A.No.55 of 2014, filed to stay the possession notice under Section 13(4) dated 11.01.2014, passed orders directing status quo in respect of Item-B of the e-auction sale notice dated 28.02.2014. For brevity, proceedings dated 28.03.2