Judgment :- (Order of the Court was delivered by D.MURUGESAN, J.) 1. As both the writ petitions relate to the same subject, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order. Writ Petition No.39545 of 2005 is filed by the principal borrower and guarantor questioning the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the SARFAESI Act") and the consequential letter of the respondent bank directing the petitioners to repay the entire amount in a period of 30 days from the date of that letter, failing which the property would be sold and the amount would be adjusted towards the balance outstanding in M/s Jeetstex Engineering Limited account. Certain credit facilities were extended by the respondent bank in favour of M/s Jeetstex Engineering Limited, for which one G.Thiruvenkatasamy stood as guarantor. As the said G.Thiruvenkatasamy expired pending disposal of the writ petition, his adopted son by name S.Karthikeyan was substituted by the order dated 4.4.2007 in M.P.No.1 of 2007 in Rev.SR.5522 of 2007. Writ Petition No.1810 of 2011 is filed by the guarantor by name S.Karthikeyan challenging the order of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction dated 24.9.2007. 2. For the disposal of both the writ petitions, we are not elaborately referring to the facts put forth in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, except to the limited extent which we are going to refer. It is the contention of S.Karthikeyan that the company by name M/s Jeetstex Engineering Limited went before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and the matter was settled, as the company offered one time settlement with the bank for payment of a sum of Rs.75 lakhs towards the full and final settlement and that was recorded by the BIFR and consequently the BIFR discharged the principal borrower and guarantor from all liabilities after such payment. When the matter stood before the BIFR and an operating agency was also appointed, the respondent bank ought not to have proceeded under the SARFAESI Act by issuance of notice under Section 13(2) followed by the possession notice under Section 13(4) and to that extent, the possession notice should be set aside. When the matter stood before the BIFR and an operating agency was also appointed, the respondent bank ought not to have proceeded under the SARFAESI Act by issuance of notice under Section 13(2) followed by the possession notice under Section 13(4) and to that extent, the possession notice should be set aside. It is the further grievance of the petitioners that after the orders of BIFR, the matter was taken on appeal to the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR). Though certain legal points have been raised, those points have not been considered and the AAIFR has only disposed of the appeal by order dated 24.9.2007 in the following manner: "29. It is an admitted position that the respective rights / obligations arising in / out of the scheme sanctioned by BIFR has been complied with both by LMW as well as Vijaya Bank. Here the wordings of the impugned order are of critical importance. If releasing the charges as referred to in the order impugned here relates to that of the company as it must since the company is before BIFR then there is no dispute. The bank having released the charge on the assets of the company does not have any grievance vis-a-vis JEL. On the other hand, the BiFR's direction relates to releasing charge on the promoters' assets then (i) because the matter is before the Hon'ble High Court, no determination can be made by us; (ii) if the petition in High Court succeeds, then the question whether promoters' assets can be taken over under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act when the principal debtor / company has settled would be decided in the promoters' favour; (iii) if the action taken by the Bank is upheld by the Hon'ble High Court then clearly promoters' assets, notwithstanding any development, can be taken under SARFAESI Act and (iv) in a matter which is related with SARFAESI Act and is also under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, this Authority would have no jurisdiction. The impugned portion of the order which relates to the promoters' assets is required to be rectified / modified to state that release of charge on assets of the promoters would be determined in terms of final outcome of the Writ Appeal pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras." 3. The impugned portion of the order which relates to the promoters' assets is required to be rectified / modified to state that release of charge on assets of the promoters would be determined in terms of final outcome of the Writ Appeal pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras." 3. In support of both the writ petitions, Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that inasmuch as in the BIFR proceedings, the principal borrower had been discharged of all liabilities after the bank accepted the one time settlement and consequently released the guarantor as well, there was no cause for the bank to again proceed under the SARFAESI Act. In any event, when this question was raised by the petitioners before the AAIFR, the same has not been considered and it has left the entire matter to be considered in a pending writ petition before this Court, namely, W.P.No.39545 of 2005. According to the learned counsel, that writ petition relates to the challenge to the possession notice and therefore there is no embargo for the AAIFR to go into the question as to whether the principal borrower has been absolved of all liabilities by accepting the one time settlement and for that reason, the guarantor was also released from the liability. 4. We have heard Mr.E.Om Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent bank also. The learned counsel for the bank disputed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners so far as the one time settlement is concerned. According to the bank, the one time settlement proposal was not absolute and it was only conditional, whereby on receipt of Rs.75 lakhs, the principal borrower alone had been discharged with a specific reservation for the bank to proceed against the guarantor and such a decision of the bank was also communicated to the petitioners and this being a disputed question of fact, it would be always open to the petitioners to agitate the same before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 challenging the possession notice, which is the proper remedy. As far as the findings of the AAIFR are concerned, that will depend upon the disposal of this writ petition and there is nothing wrong in the AAIFR observing that so long as the writ petition questioning the proceedings initiated by the bank under the SARFAESI Act is pending before this Court, it would refrain from going into those questions. 5. We have carefully considered the above submissions. As far as W.P.No.39545 of 2005 is concerned, it questions only the possession notice issued by the respondent bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Whether such notice could be issued or not in view of the pendency of the proceedings before the BiFR that was referred during November, 1999 can also be a matter that can be taken into consideration by the Debts Recovery Tribunal while deciding the challenge to the possession notice. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to accept the submissions of Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel for the petitioners and accordingly, W.P.No.39545 of 2005 is dismissed. 6. So far as the challenge to the order of the AAIFR in W.P.No.1810 of 2011 is concerned, that order will hold good till such time a decision is made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the proceedings initiated by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act. The question as to the pendency of the proceedings before the BiFR or the AAIFR, as the case may be, can also be a ground for the Debts Recovery Tribunal to consider, as those factual aspects could be only for collateral purpose while deciding whether the bank would be entitled to proceed under the SARFAESI Act pending such proceedings. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the AAIFR, except observing that any final decision that may be made applicable to the petitioners shall depend upon the orders that may be passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Accordingly, W.P.No.1810 of 2011 is also dismissed. 7. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of the fact that even when the writ petitions were pending, the respondent bank had proceeded further, till such time the Debts Recovery Tribunal disposes the matter, if any challenge is made by the petitioners, the interest of the petitioners may be protected. 7. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of the fact that even when the writ petitions were pending, the respondent bank had proceeded further, till such time the Debts Recovery Tribunal disposes the matter, if any challenge is made by the petitioners, the interest of the petitioners may be protected. In view of the said submission and also in view of the fact that the W.P.No.39545 of 2005 challenging the possession notice was filed on 2.12.2005 and was entertained as early as on 9.12.2005, we permit the petitioners to approach the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal on or before 15.03.2011. In the event such an application is filed, the same shall be considered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal without reference to the limitation and shall decide the same on its own merits. In the meantime, the respondent bank shall not proceed further by precipitating the matter. The petitioners are also at liberty to seek for appropriate interim orders before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the interim order granted by this Court will enure to the benefit of the petitioners till 15.03.2011. We also make it clear that if no application is filed by the petitioners as directed in this order on or before 15.03.2011, the respondent bank is entitled to proceed in accordance with law. With these observations and directions, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.42384 of 2005 & 130 of 2011 are closed. No costs.