ORDER I.A. Ansari, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. R.K. Das, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, Mr. S. Kar Bhowmick, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner No. 1 availed a cash credit facility to the extent of Rupees 15,00,000/- from Agartala Branch of the Respondent Bank. The Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 stood as guarantors and mortgaged their immovable property for securing the said cash credit facility. 3. According to the Petitioners, due to slump in the market, the business of the Petitioner No. 1 suffered a set back and, consequently, an arrears of Rs. 1,17,630.00 became due and payable by the Petitioners to the Respondent bank, whereupon Respondent No. 3, on 30-11-2007, classified the account as non-performing asset. The Petitioner No. 1, however, continued to make deposits in the account. When the balance outstanding as against the loan, which had been granted in favour of the Petitioner No. 1, in the form of cash credit facility stood outstanding, the Respondent bank issued a letter, on 2-1-2008, demanding recalling of the entire outstanding amount together with interest and other charges and also the guarantee, which the guarantors had provided. Notwithstanding the notice so issued, when the outstanding balance, in the account, stood at Rs. 14,82,630.00, Respondent No. 2 issued, on 2-9-2008, 60 days' notice to the Petitioners informing them that due to non-payment of interest/non-deposit of sale proceeds, the account has been classified as non-performing asset as per the Reserve Bank of India's guidelines and the total amount of Rs. 16,17,630.00 with further interest, with effect from 1-12-2007, shall be paid within 60 days from the date of the notice and, in default, besides exercising other rights, which may be available with the Respondent bank under the law, the Respondent bank intends to exercise any or all of the powers provided to them under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the letter, dated 2-9-2008, aforementioned, it was further conveyed to the Petitioners that in terms of Section 13(3) of the Act, they shall not, after receipt of the notice, transfer, by way of sale, lease or otherwise, any of the secured assets, mortgaged by them with the Respondent bank, without prior written consent of the bank and, if for any reason, the secured assets is sold or leased out in the ordinary course of business, the sale proceeds or income realized shall be deposited/remitted with/to the Respondent bank. The Petitioner No. 1, however, as the Petitioners claim, continued to make deposits and also made a representation to the Respondent bank, on 20-11-2008, seeking one time settlement of the dues payable to the Respondent bank by offering to pay Rs. 10,00,000.00 as one time settlement. 4. By letter dated 17-11-2008, addressed to the Petitioners, Respondent No. 2, as authorized officer of the Punjab National Bank, which is the secured creditor, informed the Petitioners that despite the notice, dated 2-9-2008, issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, since the amount, due to the Respondent bank, had not been paid by the Petitioners, the Respondent Bank had decided to take possession of the secured assets, the details of which were given in the said letter. By his letter, dated 17-11-2008, aforementioned, Respondent No. 2 called upon the Petitioner No. 1 to deliver possession of the secured assets before 15-12-2008 failing which the creditor would take over possession of the said secured assets. 5. On the ground that the Petitioners, though belatedly, have paid part of the dues payable by them and in the face of the fact that a part of the dues have been paid and the offer of one time settlement has been made, the Respondent Bank ought not to have been proceeding in exercise of their powers under the Act, the Petitioners have filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to get set aside and quashed the impugned notices, dated 25-3-2008 and 2-9-2008, terming the same as illegal. 6. Resisting the writ petition, the Respondents have submitted, in brief, thus. The Petitioner No. 1 was sanctioned, on 20-11-2006, a loan of Rs. 15,00,000.00, in the form of cash credit facility, with Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 as guarantors, who had mortgaged their immovable property for securing the said loan. 6. Resisting the writ petition, the Respondents have submitted, in brief, thus. The Petitioner No. 1 was sanctioned, on 20-11-2006, a loan of Rs. 15,00,000.00, in the form of cash credit facility, with Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 as guarantors, who had mortgaged their immovable property for securing the said loan. The account was opened on 20-11-2006 and the same became 'over-due', with effect from 31-3-2007, because of non-service of the accrued interest and deposit of sale proceeds from 31-3-2007. The account of the Petitioner No. 1 was classified as NPA on 30-11-2007 and, after giving sufficient time to the Petitioner No. 1 to regularize the account, the notice, dated 2-9-2008, under Section 13(2) of the Act, was duly given to the Petitioners. The Petitioner No. 1 did not make payment of the dues in terms of the said notice despite receipt of the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act and despite the fact that the Petitioners were duty bound to pay their full liabilities, when the account of the borrower had been declared as NPA. Having declared the account in question, NPA on 30-11-2008, a notice, under Section 13(2), was issued on 2-9-2008, i.e., after about 10 months, and, on the date of issuance of the said notice, the Petitioner was required to pay Rs. 16,17,630.00 and in that notice, a statutory period of additional 60 days was provided to the Petitioner No. 1 for making payment of the dues. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner No. 1 has been given almost one year of additional time to make payment of the dues of the Respondent bank. Acting in accordance with law and in tune with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the Petitioners were issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. 7. As regards the representation made by the Petitioners seeking one-time settlement of the dues of the Respondent bank, the Respondent bank contends that having considered the representation made by the Petitioners, as regards one-time settlement, the representation has been rejected by the Respondent bank and the decision, as regards rejection of the request for one-time settlement, has been conveyed to the Petitioner No. 1 by Respondent-Bank's letter, dated 22-11-2008. 8. 8. In the backdrop of the respective cases, as set up by the parties concerned, what, now, needs to be noticed is that the Petitioner No. 1, admittedly, failed not only to make payment of the interest, which became due and payable to the Bank but also failed to deposit sale proceeds in terms of the agreement, which the parties had. In fact, the letter, dated 25-3-2008 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition), issued by the Respondent Bank, to the Petitioners is nothing, but a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act inasmuch as this letter clearly states due to non-payment of accrued interest/non-deposit of sale proceeds, the account has been classified as NPA (non-performing asset) as per the Reserve Bank of India's guidelines and that the Petitioners were called up to make payment of the entire outstanding dues together with interest and other charges. 9. By the letter, dated 2-1-2008, the Respondent Batik demanded recalling of the entire outstanding amount together with interest and other charges and also the guarantee which the guarantors had provided, the amount due to the Respondent bank being Rs. 16,17,630.00, with further interest, with effect from 1-12-2007, at the contracted rate, until payment, in full. This apart, by the letter, dated 25-3-2008, it had also been made clear by the Respondent bank to the Petitioners that they shall not, after receipt of the notice, conveyed to them by the letter, dated 25-3-2008, transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise, any of the secured assets without prior written consent of the Bank. On the date of issuance of the letter, dated 25-3-2008, which was, in effect and in law, a notice under Section 13(2), the account was also classified as NPA. The Petitioners have failed to show that the act of classifying the account, in question, as NPA was illegal inasmuch as in terms of the contract agreement, the Petitioners were not only liable to pay interest but were also required to deposit sale proceeds in the account. 10. The Petitioners have failed to show that the act of classifying the account, in question, as NPA was illegal inasmuch as in terms of the contract agreement, the Petitioners were not only liable to pay interest but were also required to deposit sale proceeds in the account. 10. Moreover, the letter, dated 17-11-2008, aforementioned was, in effect, a notice under Section13(4) of the Act inasmuch this notice clearly informed the Petitioners that by their letter, dated 2-9-2008, the Respondent bank had already given a notice of 60 days in terms of Section 13(2) of the Act and as the amounts due to the Respondent bank had not been paid, despite receiving notice, the Respondent Bank had decided to take possession of the secured assets. By the letter, dated 17-11-2008, the Respondent bank further asked the Petitioner No. 1 to deliver possession of the secured assets before 15-12-2008 failing which the Respondent No. 2, as the authorized officer of the Respondent Bank, would take possession of the secured assets on or after 15-12-2008. 11. It has been contended, on behalf of the Petitioners, that until the time a notice in terms of the Appendix-IV to the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, is given, no notice, under Section13(4), is complete. It is also contended, on behalf of the Petitioners, that in terms of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, if any creditor, whose account has been classified as NPA, makes payment of his dues, the account has to be de-classified as 'standard account'. 12. For the purpose of appreciating the correctness of the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners, it is necessary to take notice of the relevant provisions of Section 13, which reads as under: 13. Enforcement of security interest.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 69 or Section 69A 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 court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Enforcement of security interest.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 69 or Section 69A 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 court or 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 instalment 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-A) If, on receipt of the notice under Sub-section (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 consider any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 or the Court of District Judge under Section' 17A. Provided that the reasons so communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not consider any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 or the Court of District Judge under Section' 17A. (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: Provided that, the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale shall be exercised only where the substantial part of the business of the borrower is held as security for the debt: Provided further that where the management of whole of the business or part of the business is severable, the secured creditor shall take over the management of such business of the borrower which is relatable to the security for the debt.) (c) appoint any person (hereafter referred to as the manager), to manage the secured assets the possession of which has been taken over by the secured creditor; (d) require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt. 13. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 13, when 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 whose account is classified as a 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 60 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). Sub-section (3) of Section 13further requires that the notice, issued under Section 13(2), sall give the details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor. Under Sub-section (3-A), if, on receipt of the notice under Sub-section (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. 14. The scheme, as projected by Sub-section (4) of Section 13, makes it clear that where any borrower makes a default in repayment of secured assets or any instalment thereof, the secured creditor may require the borrower, by notice, in writing, to discharge, 'in full', his liabilities to the secured creditor within 60 days from the date of the notice. This shows that whenever the borrower defaults in making payment of his dues, the secured creditor has the right to give notice to the borrower demanding discharge, in full, of his liabilities. The expression, 'discharge, in full, his liabilities', would obviously mean interest as well as the principal amount. In the case at hand, apart from the arrears of interest, the statement of accounts, which has been laid before this Court, clearly shows that the Petitioners had defaulted in maintaining the cash credit facility, which the Respondent Bank had provided to them. 15. The guidelines, issued by the Reserve Bank of India, which the Petitioners rely upon, are in tune with the above interpretation of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 inasmuch as the guidelines read, inter alia, as follows: As banks are aware, if arrears of interest and principal are paid by the borrower in the case of loan accounts classified as NP As, the account should no longer be treated as non-performing and classified as 'standard' account. However, it has been brought to our notice that some-banks do not comply with this requirement and consider re-classification only after one year of satisfactory performance of the account. It is reiterated that, banks should strictly adhere to our instructions on asset classification to avoid inconvenience to borrowers. However, it has been brought to our notice that some-banks do not comply with this requirement and consider re-classification only after one year of satisfactory performance of the account. It is reiterated that, banks should strictly adhere to our instructions on asset classification to avoid inconvenience to borrowers. However, our extant instructions in respect of re-classification of loan accounts subjected to restructuring would remain unchanged. 16. The above guidelines, issued by the Reserve Bank of India, clearly indicate that an account, which stands classified as NPA, shall be classified as a standard account in the case of loan accounts. Had it been the intention of the Reserve Bank of India that payment of arrears of interest due shall satisfy the requirement of a notice under Section 13(2), the expression used would have been 'if arrears of interest and principal' are paid by the borrower. The expression 'if arrears of interest and principal' means that not only arrears of interest, but even the principal amount has to be paid by the borrower, when an account is classified as NPA and/or a notice, under Section13(2), is issued. 17. A reading of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, clearly shows that the notice, as prescribed in Appendix-IV, is required to be given by the authorized officer, when he takes over possession of the secured assets and, having taken possession of the secured assets, the authorized officer is required to inform the public accordingly and that is why, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 requires notices to be published, in two leading newspapers, by the authorized officer, so that nobody deals with the property as the public, at large, shall know that the possession of the property has been taken over by a bank or a financial institution as a secured asset. 18. Coupled with the above, the representation, which the Petitioner No. 1 had made for one-time settlement, has also been considered and rejected by the Respondent Bank by their letter, dated 22-11-2008, aforementioned. 19. Above all, the notice, dated 2-9-2009, which we have already discussed above, is clearly a notice under Sub-section (4) of Section, 13 of the Act. As against issuance of such notice, the remedy provided, under the Act, is in the form of appeal under Section 17A thereof. 19. Above all, the notice, dated 2-9-2009, which we have already discussed above, is clearly a notice under Sub-section (4) of Section, 13 of the Act. As against issuance of such notice, the remedy provided, under the Act, is in the form of appeal under Section 17A thereof. Apart from the fact that there is a right of appeal provided against any act or measure taken under Section 13(4), the remedy of appeal is, indeed, a more comprehensive remedy than a writ proceeding. In the present case, the Petitioners have not been able to show that by issuing the notice under Section13(2) and/or by rejecting the representation made under Section 13(3-A) or by issuing the notice under Section 13(4), the Respondents have committed any contravention of law or have taken any action, which is impermissible in law. 20. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not find that the Petitioners have been able to make out any case warranting invoking of this Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition, therefore, fails, the same is not admitted and shall accordingly stand dismissed. 21. No order as to costs. Petition allowed