JUDGMENT

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J.

The challenge in the present petition is to the notice dated 24.05.2021 (Annexure P-5) issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'), the notice dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure P-7), issued under Section 13 (4) of the Act and the possession notice dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-8).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner availed Cash Credit and Term Loan facility from respondent No. 2-Bank and mortgaged his residential house, situated in Amritsar. The account of the petitioner was wrongly declared NPA on 31.03.2021. The petitioner had suffered huge losses, and the respondent-Bank issued a notice dated 24.05.2021 (Annexure P-5) under Section 13 (2) of the Act in violation of the notification dated 05.05.2021 (Annexure P-6) having resolution framework 2.0. The classification of the account of the petitioner as NPA was against the Master Circular-Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning pertaining to advances dated 02.07.2023. Hence, the petitioner sought quashing of the demand notice 24.05.2021 (Annexure P-5) issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act, the notice dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure P-7), issued under Section 13 (4) of the Act and the possession notice dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-8).

3. Learned counsel for the respondents-Bank referring to the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 and submitted that the petitioner has availed loan in four accounts and presently two accounts are running which have been declared NPA. The petitioner had withdrawn money from the accounts which are presently working and deposited the same with the other two accounts for closing the same. The outstanding of Rs. 83,96,678.28/- is due against the petitioner which he has failed to pay. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. We have heard the above submissions.

5. Out of the huge outstanding of Rs. 83,96,678.28/-, the petitioner is not willing to deposit any reasonable amount against the said outstanding to get the matter resolved. After issuance of the demand notice dated 24.05.2021 (Annexure P-5) under Section 13 (2) of the Act, the petitioner has failed to show that he had paid a reasonable amount to the Bank or had given any assurance to the Bank to clear his outstanding. He has not filed any objection to the Bank challenging the said notice. The Bank had issued a notice dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) under Section 13 (4) of the Act and the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy to challenge the said notice by way of filing a petition under Section 17 of the Act before the Tribunal.

6. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 17 of the Act and as per the provisions, of sub Section (2) and (3) of Section 17 of the Act. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced by the parties has ample power to set aside any measures referred to in Section 13 (4) of the Act, if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the secured creditors have not acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The Tribunal has wide powers to pass such orders as it may consider appropriate and necessary in relation to any of the recourse taken by the secured creditors under sub Section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. Section 17 of the Act reads as under:-

"Application agai