U.C. DHYANI, J.

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following relief, among others:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice dated 2.1.2016 & 6.1.2016 (annexure no. 1 & 2) issued u/s 13(2) of the ‘SARFAESI Act’, 2002 and further quashing the action of the respondent bank dated 2.1.2016 & 6.1.2016 classifying the account of the petitioner Company as NPA.

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Bank not to proceed under the SARFAESI Act of 2002 against the petitioner.”

2. The petitioner is a private limited company and is engaged in the business of marketing of Allopathic and Ayurvedic Medicines (Ayurvedic Syrup in the name of crack stone and clear stone for removal of the kidney stone, medicated soap and cream in the name of Light and White cream and sopa and a capsule in the name of Devifit for Diabetes. In August, 2013, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the borrower company)availed a C.C. limit facility for Rs. 25 lakhs as a working capital from the Punjab National Bank (respondent herein), which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 80 lakhs in June, 2014.

3. On 02/03.12.2015, the respondent-bank affixed a sale notice on the outer wall of the premises of the borrower company indicating therein that due to non payment of bank's dues by the borrower, the account of the company became Non-Performing Asset (NPA for short). The borrower served a notice dated 20.12.2015 upon the respondent-bank, which was replied to by the respondent-bank on 07.01.2016. The borrower company was stopped by the respondent bank from operating its account with the respondent-bank.

4. On 02.01.2016, the respondent-bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act’) indicating therein the date of N.P.A. as 02.01.2016. In the previous notice, which was pasted on the outer wall of the premises of borrower company, the date of NPA was not mentioned. Thereafter, the date of NPA was further changed to 06.01.2016.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the reply notice dated 07.01.2016, the respondent-bank has demanded the entire outstanding dues within 15 days, hence the bank has served its earlier notices under Section 13(2) of the Act, whereby the outstanding dues as on 31.12.2015 was to be paid within 16 days. The notices dated 02.01.2016 and 06.01.2016 have, therefore, been waived by the respondent-bank.

6. On 06.01.2016, the respondent issued another notice under Section 13 of the Act, in which, the date of NPA was mentioned as 06.01.2016. The borrower company made an objection/representation under Section 13(3)(a) of the Act to the respondent-bank, but the respondent-bank decided the representation/objection of the borrower company through a reply notice dated 18.12.23016 without considering the substantial arguments of the petitioner.

7. It is the next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the statement of account of the borrower company, the interest of the quarter, i.e., October, 2015 to December, 2015, was due towards the borrower company and the borrower company had 90 days' time from the end of the quarter to service the interest fully. According to the guidelines and directives of the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the RBI), the respondent-bank has violated the guidelines and directives of the RBI and has wrongly classified the accounts of the company as NPA. The account of the borrower company was under limit and did not exceed the sanctioned amount of Rs. 80 lakhs. It is further contended that the respondent-bank has wrongly classified the petitioner company as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in violation of clause 2.1.3 of the RBI guidelines, which speaks as below:

“2.1.3 In case of interest payments, banks should