ORDER :

The matter arises out of the rather strange and hyper-technical approach of the Registries in the Debts Recovery Tribunals functioning in the State.

2. As to whether a particular matter can be carried to the Tribunal or not or whether it pertains to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, has to be decided by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and not by Registrars or other officials working in the office. In this case, however, it is the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai who has passed the impugned order on January 29, 2020 that reads as follows:

"Passed Over.

Matter called again. The application since contained the prayer to set aside the demand notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act as well as the measure under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the Registry has taken objection on maintainability of the SAs, as against the demand notice. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant. It is needless to say that an application under section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, lies only against the measure if any initiated under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Notice u/s 13(2) of the Act is not a measure. Thus, no application against the demand notice would lie in terms of