ORDER :- The order passed in Writ Petition No. 5768/2008 (M/s. Anu Stone Crusher v. Bank of India and others) will also govern the disposal of Writ Petition No. 5770/2008 (M/s. Bajaj Stone Crusher v. Bank of India and others) and Writ Petition No. 5781/2008 (M/s. Saroj Stone Crusher v. Bank of India and others). Since all these petitions involve a common question of law, they were heard together. 2. The petitioners herein have prayed for quashing of possession notices dated 12-4-2008, Annexure P4 and 21-4-2008, Annexure P5, issued by the authorised officer of Bank of India (respondent No. 2) under S. 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "the Act"). 3. Briefly stated the facts having rise to these petitions are that the petitioners are proprietorship firms and they own a stone crusher each. The petitioners for their business took financial assistance of huge amount from the respondent-Bank, and mortgaged immovable properties in the form of security against the loan. They, after paying some installments, committed defaults. The Bank, therefore, classified their accounts as non-performing assets and issued a notice dated 29-1-2007, Annexure PI, to each of them under S. 13(2) of the Act giving details of the amount payable by them. By these notices the petitioners were required to discharge in full their liabilities within 60 days failing which the Bank became entitled to take action under sub-section (4) of S. 13. The petitioners, after receipt of the notice neither raised any objection nor discharged their full liabilities. They, however, paid some more installments which were accepted by the Bank after the expiry of 60 days. As the petitioners admittedly failed to discharge their full liabilities pursuant to the notice, the Bank has issued the impugned notices of taking over the possession of their secured assets. 4. The only submission made by the learned senior counsel for petitioners is that once the Bank accepted the part payment after the expiry of the period specified in the notice issued under sub-section (2) of S. 13 of the Act, the accounts of the petitioners no longer stood classified as non-performing assets and, therefore, action under subsection (4) of S. 13 is impermissible unless a fresh notice was issued under sub-section (2) of S. 13. The learned counsel for the Bank, on the other hand, has justified the validity of the impugned notices of taking over of the possession of petitioners secured assets. 5. Non-performing asset has been defined under S. 2(o) of the Act as under :- 2(o) "non-performing asset" means an asset or account of a borrower, which has been classified by a bank or financial institution as substandard, [doubtful or loss asset - (a) in case such bank or financial institution is administered or regulated by any authority or body established, constituted or appointed by any law for the time being in force, in accordance with the directions or guidelines relating to assets classifications issued by such authority or body; (b) in any other case, in accordance with the directions or guidelines relating to assets classifications issued by the Reserve Bank;] 6. The relevant extract of S. 13 of the Act reads as under : 13. Enforcement of security interest. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in S. 69 or S. 69-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the Court of Tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any installment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4). (3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of non-payment of secured debts by the borrower. (3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of non-payment of secured debts by the borrower. ((3A) If, on receipt of the notice under subsection (2), the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate within one week of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower : Provided that the reasons so communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under S. 17 or the Court of District Judge under S. 17-A). (4) In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2), the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the following measures to recover his secured debt, namely :- (a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset; ((b) take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset. 7. A reading of sub-section (2) of S. 13 of the Act makes it clear that where any borrower who is under a liability to a secured creditor makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any installment thereof, his account in respect of such debt can be classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset. "Non-performing asset" is defined to mean asset or account of a borrower which has been classified by a bank or financial institution as sub-standard, doubtful or loss asset. Sub-section (2) of S. 13 further provides that once the account in respect of secured debt is classified as non-performing asset then the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge his full liabilities within 60 days failing which it will be entitled to exercise the rights under sub-section (4). Sub-section (2) of S. 13 further provides that once the account in respect of secured debt is classified as non-performing asset then the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge his full liabilities within 60 days failing which it will be entitled to exercise the rights under sub-section (4). Thus, the classification of account as non-performing asset by the bank and issuance of notice requiring the borrower to discharge his full liabilities are two different independent steps. But it is only after the first step is over, the bank may exercise its discretion to take recourse to the second step. Further, the use of word "full" in subsection (4) of S. 13 has an important significance and it denotes that in case the borrower failed to discharge his liabilities in full within the period specified in sub-section (2) the bank becomes entitled to take recourse of the measures provided in the subsection to recover its secured debt. Thus, for the orrower to avoid an action under sub-section (4) by the bank, he must discharge his full liabilities within the period specified in the notice and he cannot escape the action by making part payments. It is also to be noted that the definition of non-performing asset does not state that once the account of borrower is classified as such, it ceases to be non-performing asset if any payment made by the borrower thereafter towards the debt is adjusted in his account. For these reasons, I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned senior counsel for petitioners. 8. The total liability outstanding against the petitioners is more than rupees fifty lakh which they have not denied. As the petitioners did not discharge their full liabilities after the receipt of notice issued under subsection (2) of S. 13, the bank is entitled to issue the impugned notices of possession by taking recourse to the measures provided under sub-section (4). 9. The petitions fail and are dismissed but without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.