D. V SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is yet another petition by the borrowers of loan from the first respondent-Financial Corporation complaining of the action on the part of the Financial Corporation was has resorted to recovery proceedings for the realization of the amounts due to the Corporation from the petitioners. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioners had borrowed certain amounts and that amounts have not been paid as per the agreed terms. It also appears that the petitioners" unit suffered certain damages due to fire mishap and the insurance amount paid for the loss suffered by the unit has also been received by the Corporation and adjusted towards the outstanding loan against the petitioners" account. ( 3 ) THE main grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners had not been put on notice before the respondent-Corporation had resorted to recovery proceedings and before issuing the communication at Annexure F dated 18-4-2001 which has been issued by the officers of the Financial Corporation to the recovery officials on behalf of the Corporation to realize a sum of Rs. 10,50,444/- which was due to the Corporation as on 10-12-1999. It is aggrieved by this communication at Annexure F and questioning the validity of the same, the petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of said communication. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has urged two points for consideration by this Court. 10,50,444/- which was due to the Corporation as on 10-12-1999. It is aggrieved by this communication at Annexure F and questioning the validity of the same, the petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of said communication. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has urged two points for consideration by this Court. First is that the communication at Annexure F had not been preceded by any valid notice to the petitioners apprising the petitioners of the steps for resorting to revenue recovery for the realisation of the amount; and that certain proceedings in case No. 35/1997 filed on a complaint lodged by the petitioners before the Karnataka State Consumer Redressal Commission is pending wherein the petitioners had sought for compensation against the Insurance Company and impleading the corporation therein on the premise that the amount paid in respect of the fire accident that had taken place in the factory was not a proper compensation as per the policy and if such additional amounts are directed to be paid by the Insurance Company, that would go to the credit of the petitioners for discharging or reducing the loan and as such the Corporation should not have resorted to recovery proceedings even during the pendency of such case before the Karnataka State Consumer Redressal Commission. ( 5 ) THE respondents have filed detailed statement of objections. Sri. Rudra Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the respondents points on that the Corporation had put the petitioners on notice even as early as on 11-6-1999 when a legal notice had been issued to the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 9,10,019/- which was the amount due as on 10-3-1999 and the petitioners were also put on notice that for non-payment of the said amount within 10 days; apart from that amount carrying further interest will compel the Corporation to resort to recovery proceedings either as provided under the Karnataka Financial Corporations Act or as under the Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that in this view of the matter, the Corporation had in fact put the petitioners on notice. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that in this view of the matter, the Corporation had in fact put the petitioners on notice. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners disputes this position and submits that the notice dated 11-6-1999 cannot be construed as a valid notice which could have enabled the respondent-Corporation to have recourse to recovery proceedings and submits that at any rate the Corporation should have issued a specific notice to the petitioners even thereafter before issuing the communication at Annexure F indicating course of action. The learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of M. A. Kamath v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, reported in AIR 1981 Kant 193 in this regard. Relying on the said decision, the submission of the learned counsel is that the notice dated 11-6-1999 cannot be construed as a valid notice which could have enabled the Corporation to have resorted to recovery proceedings. Sri. Rudra Gowda on the other hand draws the attention of the Court to the subsequent decision of this Court, reported in (1985) 2 Kant LJ 160 in the case of Gopal B. S. v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation wherein this Court had taken the view that a legal notice issued on behalf of the Corporation is held to be a notice which is in compliance with the requirements of the principles of natural justice and also amounts to affording an opportunity to the borrower before having recourse to recovery proceedings. ( 7 ) THE very notice dated 11-6-1999, a copy of which is produced as Annexure R-2 to the statement of objections, has clearly mentioned that on the failure of the petitioners to make good the payment within a period of 10 days, recovery proceedings will be resorted to. By no stretch of imagination can this notice be said to be a notice not sufficient to apprise the petitioners about the course of action proposed by the respondent-Corporation for recovery proceedings. ( 8 ) I am not able to accept the submission on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners had not been put on notice by the Corporation before having recourse to recovery proceedings. Accordingly, the first point urged on behalf of the petitioners fails. ( 8 ) I am not able to accept the submission on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners had not been put on notice by the Corporation before having recourse to recovery proceedings. Accordingly, the first point urged on behalf of the petitioners fails. ( 9 ) THE second submission is that as the petitioners have lodged a complaint before the State Consumer Redressal Commission and as the said complaint having been numbered as Case No. 35/1994 is now pending before the State Commission, even during the pendency of the same, the Corporation cannot proceed for recovery. It is difficult to accept the said submission. The recovery is in respect of the amounts that had been lent to the petitioners and for non-payment of the same. The question as to whether the Insurance Company has adequately compensated or has not met the claim of the petitioners towards damages of petitioners" unit due to fire accident, is not linked with the question of recovery of the amounts not paid by the petitioners to the Corporation. Subsequent disputes raised in the context of other developments cannot be read into the contract between the petitioners and the Corporation and at any rate pendency of such proceedings cannot be construed as an event which should stall the recovery proceedings by the Corporation. It is open to the petitioners to pursue their complaint and to get such redressal as they are entitled to before the Commission. But that cannot come in the way of the Corporation recovering the amounts due to it which amount is required to be paid by the petitioners with respect to their borrowings. In the circumstances, I am unable to accept the second submission also urged on behalf of the petitioners. ( 10 ) I do not find any justification to entertain this writ petition for issue of rule. Accordingly, it is rejected without issuing rule. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .