JUDGMENT : D.A. Mehta, J. Rule The learned advocate for the respondent is directed to waive service and the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. 2. This petition challenges notice dated 24th November, 2005 issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the SRFAESI Act) by the respondent-bank calling upon the petitioners to discharge liabilities aggregating to Rs. 28.24 lacs within 60 (sixty) days of the receipt of the notice. It is an accepted fact that the petitioners had raised various objections vide reply dated 16th December, 2005 in accordance with the requirement of Section 13 (3-A) of the SRFAESI Act. When the petition came up for admission hearing on 7th October, 2006 the Court had issued notice after recording the contention on behalf of the petitioners that the objections raised by the petitioners had not been disposed off by the respondent-bank. As no categorical averment to the said effect had been made in the petition, the Court directed the petitioners to file an affidavit to this effect. An affidavit sworn on the same day has been filed on record of the petition on 12th October, 2006. 3. It appears that a copy of the said affidavit has not been served upon the other side and hence, after inviting attention to the aforesaid order, the learned advocate for the respondent-bank made a grievance that the statement made by the learned advocate had not been borne out by an affidavit as directed by the Court. However, considering the fact that the affidavit is available on record, the learned advocate for the petitioners is directed to supply a copy of the same to the learned advocate for the respondent-bank. 4. Provisions of Section 13 (3-A) of the SRFAESI Act require that after receipt of notice under sub-section (2) if the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor is required to consider such representation or objection, and in the event the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation/objection is not acceptable, the secured creditor shall communicate within 1 (one) week of receipt of such representation/objection the reason for non-acceptance of such representation/objection. In the present case, though the respondent-bank has tendered an elaborate affidavit-in-reply, there is no averment to the effect that the objections have not been accepted and such non-acceptance has been communicated within the statutory period to the petitioners. May be the respondent-bank did not find it necessary to make such statement in the affidavit-in-reply in absence of any averment in the petition and in absence of service of the copy of the affidavit filed as directed by the Court. In the circumstances, learned advocate for the respondent-bank was called upon by the Court to clarify factually whether the respondent-bank has or has not complied with the requirements of provisions of Section 13 (3-A) of the SRFAESI Act. The learned advocate has very fairly stated that the respondent-bank has failed to comply with the requirement of Section 13 (3-A) of the SRFAESI Act. 5. In the aforesaid fact situation, without entering into any other issue on merits of the controversy between the parties, this petition is required to be allowed on this limited count. The respondent-bank having failed to comply with the requirement of sub-section (3-A) of Section 13 of the SRFAESI Act, no further action under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the SRFAESI Act is envisaged by the scheme of the SRFAESI Act. 6. The impugned notice is therefore, quashed and set aside. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed for the forgoing reasons. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.