A petitioner must exhaust statutory remedies before seeking writ relief in matters under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Act.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Baktavasalan for Ms.S.Prathibaa For Respondent : Mr.J.Senthilkumar ORDER (Order of the Court was made by G.Arul Murugan, J.)

Heard Mr.P.M.Baktavasalan, learned counsel for Ms.S.Prathibaa for the petitioner and Mr.J.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner, a partner of the borrower, challenges Section

13(2) notice dated 14.06.2024 and Section 13 (4) notice dated 30.11.2024 issued under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”].

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the bank/secured creditor issued possession notice dated 04.09.2024, which was challenged by the petitioner in S.A.No.771 of 2024 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. However, since it was submitted by the bank that in view of the clerical error in the possession notice dated 04.09.2024, a fresh possession notice under Section 13 (4) has been issued on 30.11.2024, the SARFAESI appeal came to be closed.

4. He further contended that when the possession notice was withdrawn, the bank filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act for securing possession and according to him, the proceedings are not maintainable. In view of the proceedings taken by the secured creditor, the petitioner challenges the measures taken under the SARFAESI proceedings.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the bank contended that the possession notice has been issued on 30.11.2024 under Section 13 (4) of the Act and the petitioner, without filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Act, had preferred this writ petition, which is not maintainable.

6. He further submitted that the bank had already filed an application under Section 14 of the Act and the order for securing possession had been passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, on 27.03.2025. The petitioner had also challenged order before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore and obtained an interim protection based on this writ petition. The present writ petition, after having filed statutory appeal under Section 17 , is not maintainable.

7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the materials produced.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner is a partner of the borrower, 'M/s.Sun Enterprises', which had received financial assistance from the respondent bank / secured creditor to the tune of Rs.10 crores. The petitioner, being a partner of the borrower, had mortgaged her property in favour of the secured creditor, securing the loan availed by the partnership firm.

9. In view of the default committed, the loan account of the borrower was declared as non-performing asset and the bank issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act on 14.06.2024 calling for repayment of the loan amount. On failure to make the payment within the time stipulated, the respondent bank issued the possession notice under (4) of the Act on 30.11.2024.

10. Any person (including borrower), who is aggrieved by any of the measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13 (4) of the Act, may file an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. Learned counsel contends that since the earlier (4) notice was issued on 04.09.2024, which was challenged by her in S.A.No.771 of 2024, but however, since there was a clerical error, the bank withdrew that notice and issued the present notice under (4) on 30.11.2024.

11. Admittedly fresh notice under Section 13 (4) has now been issued on 30.11.2024. The petitioner, if aggrieved, has to necessarily file a