ORDER : R. SUBBIAH, J. 1. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and represented by its Director, namely, N.Rajan Venkatesh. 2. The petitioner Company is carrying on the business of Horticulture and Floriculture. In order to develop its business, the petitioner Company approached the 2nd respondent Bank requesting them to provide credit facilities. The 2nd respondent Bank, by letter dated 05.01.2008, sanctioned a sum of Rs.170 lakhs towards Agricultural Term Loan, for which, agricultural land to the extent of 9.29 acres belonging to the Directors of the Petitioner Company were offered as collateral security. The petitioner, by utilizing the credit facilities, completed the entire green house structure and started plantations of carnation cut flowers at their Thandikudi Farm. The respondent bank further sanctioned a sum of Rs.50 lakhs on 19.08.2011 towards agricultural term loan. But, the petitioner availed only a sum of Rs.37.15 lakhs. 3. According to the petitioner, due to crisis in the field of floriculture industry, the company was unable to repay the loan amount, however, the company has been paying the interest amount to the Bank. Hence, the petitioner requested the Bank to restructure their loan amount. However, the 2nd respondent without considering the request of the petitioner company for restructuring the loan amount, wrongly classified the loan account of the petitioner company as Non- Performing Asset on 31.03.2018 and initiated recovery proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act) 4. The first respondent issued demand notice dated 18.07.2018 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, demanding a sum of Rs.1,76,67,840.91. According to the petitioner, the said demand notice does not contain the particulars and details as required under SARFAESI Act and hence, it is per se illegal. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the Company gave a proposal for one time settlement by letter dated 23.08.2018 along with a cheque for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as up-front amount, but the same was rejected by the respondent Bank by letter dated 31.08.2018 and the above cheque was returned. As the said demand notice is not in accordance with SARFAESI Act and Security Interest Rules, the petitioner raised its objections by their representation dated 06.09.2018 as per Section 13(3A) of the Act, for which, the respondent gave evasive reply. As the said demand notice is not in accordance with SARFAESI Act and Security Interest Rules, the petitioner raised its objections by their representation dated 06.09.2018 as per Section 13(3A) of the Act, for which, the respondent gave evasive reply. Thereafter, the respondent, on 31.10.2018 issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, against the petitioner Company and the Directors of the Company and took possession of the properties mortgaged with the bank on 31.10.2018. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner Company filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, in S.A.No.613 of 2018. The Tribunal, by an order dated 17.12.2018 granted an order of interim stay, subject to payment of Rs.12,57,000/- each on three instalments, namely, on 18.01.2019, 18.02.2019 and 19.03.2019, failing which, stay granted shall stand automatically vacated and directed to post the case on 23.02.2019. Aggrieved against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Bank issued demand and possession notice on a dead person, namely, Mr.P.Manohar, who is one of the Directors of the Company. Once the person, who is the borrower or guarantor of the loan, died, the demand and possession notice should be issued on the legal heirs of the deceased person. But, the respondent Bank did not do so. When the notice was issued on the dead person and the same was challenged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal mainly on the ground that the demand and possession notice issued against a dead person, namely, Mr.P.Manohar, who is one of the Directors of the Company, is unsustainable, the interim order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal directing the petitioner Company for payment of Rs.12,57,000/- each in three installments is totally non-est in the eye of law. 7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by relying upon a decision rendered by this Court in the case of S.Suhaina Banu and others vs. Indian Bank, Rep. 7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by relying upon a decision rendered by this Court in the case of S.Suhaina Banu and others vs. Indian Bank, Rep. by its Chief Manager and others, reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 7654, contended that the proceedings initiated against a person while he/she was alive would automatically stand abated immediately after his/her demise and the only course open to the respondent Bank is to initiate proceedings by issuing fresh notice to the legal heirs of the borrower/guarantor and in the event of failure to discharge the liability by the legal heirs, the respondent Bank could proceed further by issuance of notice under Sub- Section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the dead person is not the owner of the land and he is only the guarantor of the loan amount. The learned counsel also raised a ground as to the maintainability of the writ petition as against the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, by placing reliance on the recent judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 05.10.2018 in ICICI Bank Limited vs. Umakanta Mohapatra, Civil Appeal Nos.10251-10265 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 16758-16772 of 2015 and submitted that when there is an alternative remedy available, the writ petition is not maintainable and should not be entertained and hence, prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition. 9. At this juncture, it is relevant to quote the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. In that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 05.10.2018 in ICICI Bank Limited vs. Umakanta Mohapatra, Civil Appeal Nos.10251-10265 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.16758-16772 of 2015, it has been held as follows: “Despite several judgments of this Court, including a judgment by Hon'ble Mr.Justice Navin Sinha, as recently as on 30.01.2018, in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr., vs. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 , the High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), and keep granting interim orders in favour of persons who are Non-Performing Assets (NPAs). The writ petition itself was not maintainable, as a result of which, in view of our recent judgment, which has followed earlier judgments of this Court, held as follows:-. 18. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd., vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd., and another, (1997) 6 SCC 450 , observing:- “32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops.” The writ petition, in this case, being not maintainable, obviously, all orders passed must perish, including the impugned order, which is set aside.” 10. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Company is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- on or before 6th February 2019 in a no-lien account with a view to show its bonafides and capacity to raise funds for such OTS settlement. He has also filed an affidavit to that effect. It is appropriate to extract the affidavit filed by the petitioner Company and the same is extracted hereunder: “With a view to give a constructive disposal to the writ proceedings, the writ petition submits as follows: 1. Instead of making payment into the loan account in 3 installments in a total sum of Rs.37,71,000/- as ordained by order dated 17.12.2018 of DRT, Madurai in I.A.No.3022 of 2018 in S.A.No.613 of 2018, the petitioner undertakes to deposit a lump sum of Rs.40,00,000/- on or before 6th February 2019 into no lien account with a view to show its bonafides and capacity to raise funds for such OTS settlement that may be arrived at. 2. 2. The amount thus deposited in No-lien account is to remain as such till the disposal of the main appeal S.A.No.613 of 2018 before DRT, Madurai and in the interregnum the interest accrued alone is hereby authorized to be transferred to the loan amount. 3. The principal amount of Rs.40,00,000/- can also be transferred to the loan account only on the following two contingencies: (a) The petitioner does not succeed in its recourse to the statutory remedy in challenging the possession notice dated 31.10.2018. (b) In case parties arrive at an amicable one-time settlement, the amount in the no-lien account can be transferred to the loan account towards such OTS. 4. It is further agreed to that in case the applicant's challenge to the validity of possession notice stands vindicated, it is open to the petitioner to draw the principal amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. 5. The writ petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the disposal of S.A.No.613 of 2018 before DRT, Madurai, expeditiously within six months from this date. 6. Failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs.40,00,000/- on or before 6th February 2019 will be deemed noncompliance of the order dated 17.12.2018 and the respondent bank will be free to forthwith proceed further in law. 7. The petitioner undertakes to forthwith furnish to the respondent bank the particulars of the legal heirs of the deceased P.Manohar within one week.” 11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, the writ petition is not maintainable as per the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as cited supra. However, as the petitioner is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-, on or before 6th February 2019, this Court is constrained to pass the following orders: (i) In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to deposit a lump sum of Rs.40,00,000/- on or before 6th February 2019 in a no lien account and the petitioner is also directed to give the particulars/details of the legal heirs of the deceased person within a period of ten days. (ii) On such deposit, the Debt Recovery Tribunal is directed to take up the appeal in S.A.No.613 of 2018 on file and dispose of the same on merits after hearing both sides on or before 31.03.2019. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (ii) On such deposit, the Debt Recovery Tribunal is directed to take up the appeal in S.A.No.613 of 2018 on file and dispose of the same on merits after hearing both sides on or before 31.03.2019. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.