JUDGMENT : Seeking quashing of notice dated 15.10.2014 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, M/s. Corrugated Crate & Printer availed cash credit of Rs.19.50 lacs and a term loan of Rs.61.60 lacs. The petitioner is the proprietor of the said Company. It appears that the loan account of the company was declared N.P.A. however, after the petitioner regularised the account, the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was recalled. In terms of the loan availed by the company, the term loan was required to be repaid in 60 installments of Rs.1,44,133/- from 31.01.2013. For availing cash credit facility, the petitioner was required to maintain minimum turnover of five times the credit limit in one financial year however, the turnover of firm of the petitioner remained Rs.11 lacs only and therefore, the cash credit facility was not extended to the petitioner. The account of the company was again declared N.P.A. with effect from 30.09.2014 and a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 15.10.2014. Challenging the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Mr. A. Allam, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank of India raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is a defaulter and inspite of notice issued to her, she has failed to regularise her account and therefore, after notice dated 15.10.2014 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act has also been issued and possession of the secured assets has been taken by the respondent-Bank of India. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to representation dated 21.12.2013 and the representation dated 13.12.2014 to the respondent-Bank and submits that the respondent-Bank illegally withdrew an amount of Rs.2 lacs for insurance and an amount of Rs.3.58 lacs was transferred from the cash credit account of the petitioner and transferred to the term loan amount, illegally. It is further submitted that till the time notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued on 15.10.2014, the petitioner never defaulted in payment of installments. It is further submitted that till the time notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued on 15.10.2014, the petitioner never defaulted in payment of installments. It is further submitted that inspite of representation to the respondent-Bank for offering a rescheduled loan repayment plan, the respondent-Bank has refused to accede to the request of the petitioner. 5. As against the above, Mr. A. Allam, the learned senior counsel reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submits that since notice under Section 13(4) of the Act has been issued and possession of secured assets has already been taken, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the Act. 6. From the materials brought on record, I find that in her representation dated 13.12.2014, the petitioner has given details of payment made by her to the respondent-Bank. The details disclosed by the petitioner indicates that she has made payment of Rs.1,50,000/on two occasions and the payment made by the petitioner on 30.06.2014 is Rs.2,880/. It is not denied by the petitioner that for the term loan availed by the petitioner's firm, she is liable to make payment of Rs.1,44,133/- per month with effect from 31.01.2013. In view of the statement made in paragraph no.10 of the representation dated 13.12.2014, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that she has been making regular payment of the installments, is found false. Insofar as, grievance raised by the petitioner that an amount of Rs.2 lacs was withdrawn for insurance and the amount of Rs.3.58 lacs was illegally transferred from the cash credit account to the term loan account, the same has been disputed by the respondent-Bank. Admittedly, the petitioner's firm is a defaulter and its account was declared N.P.A. I find no infirmity in the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. 7. Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in view of the fact that notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been issued by the respondent-Bank of India, a liberty is reserved with the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, if aggrieved by the issuance of notice under Section 13(4) of the Act.