The main legal point established in the judgment is the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for challenging a possession notice issued under Section 13(4), and the jurisdiction of the appropriate Tribunal for such challenges.

S. Manikumar, J.

1. Possession notice dated 19.03.2018, issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenged in this writ petition, is extracted hereunder.

"Whereas, the under signed being the Authorised officer of Canara Bank, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (Act 54 of 2002) and in exercise of powers conferred under Section 13 (12) read with rule 3 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 issued a Demand Notice dt.11.01.2018, calling upon the borrower, M/s. EXTAL INTERNATIONAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD. registered office at Old No. 58, New No.10, 6th Street, Valasaravakkam, Chennai - 600 087, represented by Sri. K.R.C. Menon residing at "Mandhavam", Vasanth Nagar, TMC No. iii/2201/10, Patturaikkal, Thirussur 600 022 to repay the amount mentioned in the notice being Rs.4,60,38,558/- (Rupees Four Crore Sixty Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Eight only) together with the interest thereon within 60 Days from the date of receipt of the said Notice.

The borrower having failed to repay the amount, notice is hereby given to the borrower and the public in general that the undersigned has taken Physical Possession of the property described herein below in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 13(4) of the said Act, read with rule 8 & 9 of the said rules on this Tenth Day of March 2018.

The borrower attention is invited to provisions of Sub Section (8) of Section 13 of the Act, in respect of time available, to redeem the secured assets.

The property in particular and the public in General are hereby cautioned not to deal with the property and dealings with the property will be subject to the charge of Canara Bank for an amount of Rs.4,60,38,558/- (Rupees Four Crore Sixty Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Eight Only) and further interest there on from 29.08.2017.

DESCRIPTION OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

EMT of Land & Residential House at Plot No.58, New No.10, 6th Street, Choudry Nagar, Valasarawakam, Chennai - 87, S. No. 162/1 & 164/2 with extent of land of 4400 sq.ft and building of GF, FF, SF of plinth area 1300, 1100 and 200 sq.ft respectively standing in the name of Mr. K.R.C. Menon

Boundaries

North: Plot No.59

South: School & Play Ground

East: 30' Wide Road

West: Plot No. 57

2. Assailing the correctness of the same, Mr. V.Ramesh Vel, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, bank has issued instant impugned notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if six months time is granted entire debt could be discharged.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

4. Possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, can be challenged under Section 17(1) of the Act. Courts have consistently held that when there is an effective and alternative remedy, writ is not maintainable. Reference can be made to the following decisions.

(i) In Precision Fastenings v. State Bank of Mysore, reported in 2010(2) LW 86, this Court held as follows:

"This Court has repeatedly held in a number of decisions right from the decision in Division Electronics Ltd. v. Indian Bank (DB) Markandey Katju, C.J., (2005 (3) C.T.C., 513), that the remedy of the aggrieved party as against the notice issued under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act is to approach the appropriate Tribunal and the writ petition is not maintainable. The same position has been succinctly stated by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Transcore v. Union of India (2006 (5) C.T.C. 753) in paragraph No. 26 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:

“The Tribunal under the DRT Act is also the Tribunal under the NPA Act. Under Section 19 of the DRT Act read with Rule 7 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (1993 Rules), the applicant bank or FI has to pay fees for filing such application to DRT under the