Hon’ble Siddharth, J.—Heard Shri Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The above noted writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the possession notice dated 26.9.2017 issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act, 2002’).

3. The brief facts of the present petition are that the petitioner availed cash credit facility from the respondent No. 2 for setting up the business of trading of LED Bulb through a firm in the name and style of “M/s. Kanika Swami” situated at Swami Pada Aggrawal Complex, Chandan Bhawan, Meerut.

4. The petitioner has stated that the above noted credit facility was accorded to her by the bank on 30.9.2016 for a limit of Rs. 93,00,000/-. Due to demonetization goods purchased by her could not be sold out and after the enforcement of Goods and Service Tax (GST), her business further suffered losses and her account with the respondent No. 2 became irregular.

5. The respondent No. 2, bank issued a notice under Section 13 (2) dated 5.7.2017 under SARFAESI Act, 2002 for payment of the outstanding dues of Rs. 96,35,,532.00 and then the impugned possession notice dated 26.9.2017 has been issued by the bank under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules” only).

6. The petitioner has stated that she is willing to deposit Rs. 3,50,000/- but the bank is not accepting the same and she is willing to pay the balance amount for regularization of her account in the respondent-bank.

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Sri Sanjai Singh, has argued that against the possession notice dated 26.9.2017 issued by the bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the petitioner has efficacious and alternative remedy under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and this Hon’ble Court should not interfere with the proceedings of recovery initiated by the bank against the petitioner. He has further submitted that after the notice dated 5.7.2017 issued by the bank, under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the petitioner did not turn up to clear her liability and, therefore, after the expiry of period of 60 days given in the notice, the bank has proceeded to take possession of the property under Section 13, Sub Clause (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality in the same. He has further stated that since the account of the petitioner has been declared Non Performing Asset (NPA) by the Bank as per the prudential norms of Reserve Bank of India, therefore, unless outstanding dues are cleared, the account of the petitioner cannot be regularized.

7. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar. Before we examine the submissions made at the bar, a brief look at the purpose of enactment of SARFAESI Act, 2002 may be useful.

8. The accumulation of the “Non-Performing Assets” (NPAs), a glorified terminology used in the banking circles to refer to ‘bad loans’, has always been an eye sore for the banks. The prudential norms applicable to banking companies stipulate the stage at which an asset should be classified as an NPA. The prudential norms require the banks to categorize NPAs and make provisions accordingly.

9. The enactment of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act) is a watershed event. Banks and other lending institutions have had enough in the prolonged litigations before Civil Courts. Alarming level of NPAs in the country paved way for the establishment of “Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRT). The DRTs offer a simple and speedy recovery mechanism.

10. Despite establishment and decade of opera