JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Dashrath Chauhan, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Lalit M. Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Vijay H. Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner herein is a borrower. The respondent No.1 having sanctioned the cash credit facility to the petitioner for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in the year 1997. Upon execution of the security documents the respondent Bank disbursed the said credit facility. The petitioner herein made the payment regularly to the respondent Bank but after sometime due to loss in business and unavoidable circumstances the petitioner was not in position to make payment regularly to the respondent Bank. In view thereof, the respondent No.1 classified the account of the petitioner as Non Performing Assets (NPA) on 30.3.2003. 2.1 Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act came to be issued by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner on 20.11.2003 demanding outstanding amount of Rs.4,06,242.96. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the said notice was never served to the petitioner. After a period of 07 years the respondent No.1 issued possession notice on 5.8.2010 and thereby took the symbolic possession of the property of the petitioner. 2.3 The respondent No.1 Bank published sale notice on 12.9.2011 and put the property for sale and having sold the property for an amount to the tune of Rs.26,51,000/- issued the sale certificate on 9.11.2011 in favour of the respondent No.2 herein. 2.4 The respondent Bank filed an application under Section 14 of the Act for taking physical possession of the property in question. The order came to be passed granting the said application by the learned CMM, Ahmedabad on 30.3.2013. The petitioner thereafter filed Securitization Application No.39 of 2013 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad against the respondent No.1 Bank from taking physical / actual possession of the property in question and from any action under or pursuant to the impugned sale notice dated 20.11.2023 and from taking any further steps under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act with respect to the property in question. 2.5 Upon hearing the respective parties the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, by order dated 17.9.2013 dismissed the S.A. No.39 of 2013. It was directed to refund the residual amount to the petitioner from the sale proceeds of the secured property. 2.5 Upon hearing the respective parties the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, by order dated 17.9.2013 dismissed the S.A. No.39 of 2013. It was directed to refund the residual amount to the petitioner from the sale proceeds of the secured property. The said order is duly produced at Annexure-A. 2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad by dated 17.9.2013 in the S.A. No.39 of 2013 the petitioner preferred appeal being Appeal No.264 of 2013 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai which also came to be dismissed on 16.1.2024. The said order is duly produced at Annexure-B. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No.264 of 2013 dated 16.1.2024 dismissing the Appeal the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs :- “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED to admit and allow this Petition; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Presiding Officer, DRT-I Ahmedabad in the Securitization Application No. 39 of 2013 dated: 17/9/2013 and further be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the Chairman, The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai in Appeal NO. 264/2013 dated : 16/1/2024 to confirm the order passed by DRT-I, Ahmedabad order dt : 17/9/2013 at Annexure -A and Annexure -B respectively to this petition; (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED to quash and set aside the notice dated 20/11/2003 under section 13(2) of the Securitization Act and declared this notice void ab initio; and to declare the subsequent all proceeding of respondent no.1 bank after notice dated 20/11/2003 under Securitization Act to eb NULL & Void.. (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED to pass the order during pending and final disposal of this petition respondents may not take any coercive action regarding disputed property. (E) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED to pass the order deemed to think fit in the interest of justice.” 4. Mr. Dashrath Chauhan, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that both, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai have failed to properly appreciate the notices issued by the respondent Bank dated 20.11.2003 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act demanding an amount of Rs.4,06,242.96. Mr. Dashrath Chauhan, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that both, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai have failed to properly appreciate the notices issued by the respondent Bank dated 20.11.2003 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act demanding an amount of Rs.4,06,242.96. The said notice was never served to the petitioner herein. 4.1 It was submitted that both, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai failed to appreciate that the respondent Bank issued the so-called possession notice on 5.8.2010. In the said notice as on 31.7.2010 a sum of Rs.3,52,081.96 is due and payable. The demand notice issued on 20.11.2003 was not legal because on the date on which symbolic possession was taken, the payable dues are different therefore the respondent Bank has not properly followed under the Securitization Act. 4.2 The demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act issued on 20.11.2003 and the symbolic possession notice is issued on 5.8.2010, after a gap of 07 years. No steps are taken by the respondent Bank in the interregnum period and the same is not explained by the respondent Bank. Between the aforesaid period the petitioner had paid the amount towards cash credit and the respondent Bank has accepted the same. Since 2006 the petitioner has paid the amount to the respondent Bank and, therefore, Section 13(2) of the Act notice which was not served to the present petitioner and demand of Rs.4,06,242.96 is not proper as also the action taken by the respondent Bank having taken symbolic possession on 5.8.2010. 4.3 Mr. Chauhan, the learned advocate also submitted that the competent authorities have failed to appreciate that the signatory of the possession notice and sale notice, is not the authorized officer as, the designation of the signatory is not mentioned in the said notices. 4.4 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the respondent Bank has sold the property for an amount of Rs.26,51,000/-, the value of which is more than six times. The aforesaid was never informed to the petitioner and the respondent Bank has violated the mandatory provisions of Rule 9(7) of the SARFAESI Rules. 4.5 It is submitted that the respondent Bank has violated the mandatory provisions of the Rule 8(6) of the Rules. The aforesaid was never informed to the petitioner and the respondent Bank has violated the mandatory provisions of Rule 9(7) of the SARFAESI Rules. 4.5 It is submitted that the respondent Bank has violated the mandatory provisions of the Rule 8(6) of the Rules. It is submitted that the petitioner herein has issued a demand draft in favour of the respondent Bank in the year 2013, 2014 and 2017 duly produced at Annexure-G to the petition. 4.6 In the course of hearing reliance is placed on the statement of account for the period 7.10.2003 to 9.11.2011 (page-55) and additional affidavit filed by the petitioner before the learned DRT in Securitization Application No.39 of 2013 showing readiness and willingness to deposit the amount to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- by cheque dated 5.8.2013. 4.7 It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the learned DRT and learned DRAT require to be quashed and set aside and the prayers as prayed for by the present petitioner in the present petition are required to be allowed. 5. Mr. Lalit M. Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent Bank and submitted that upon default in re-payment of the loan extended by the respondent Bank in favour of the petitioner herein, the petitioner’s account came to be classified as NPA on 30.3.2003. The demand notice came to be issued 20.11.2003 and upon taking symbolic possession on 5.8.2010 and the respondent No.1 sold the secured asset to the tune of Rs.26.51 lakhs to the respondent No.2 by way of public auction under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. The sale certificate was issued on 9.11.2011 in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 5.1 It was submitted that even after conclusion of sale of the secured asset on 9.11.2011, the petitioner herein chose not to challenge the measures undertaken by the respondent Bank under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within a stipulated time of 45 days and, therefore, the sale was concluded and all the measures taken till sale of the secured asset attained finality as the same remained unchallenged. 5.2 It was submitted that on the sale of the secured assets to the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 Bank was required to hand over the physical possession and in view thereof preferred an application under Section 14 of the Act before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad who passed an order dated 30.3.2003 for taking physical possession of the property in question. 5.3 It was submitted that after the said order came to be passed under Section 14 of the Act the petitioner challenged the same by preferring S.A. No.39 of 2013 before the learned DRT under Section 17 of the Act on 30.4.2013. It was submitted that in the said application the petitioner herein sought for a direction to direct the respondent Bank to accept the outstanding dues and thereby redeem the mortgaged property. 5.4 It was submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly held that right of redemption ceased once the sale certificate is issued and that apart Securitization Application was held to be time barred as the sale certificate was issued on 9.11.2011 and the said Securitization Application was rightly rejected by order dated 17.9.2013. 5.5 It was submitted that the learned DRAT, Mumbai also confirmed the order passed by the learned DRT, Ahmedabad by the impugned order dated 16.1.2024. 5.6 The learned Appellate Tribunal considered the merits of the matter and held that once the Securitization Application No.23 of 2013 was dismissed the second Securitization Application No.39 of 2013 filed consequent to the issuance of the order under Section 14 of the Act, to be not maintainable. 5.7 It was rightly held that there was no infirmity pointed out in the order passed under Section 14 of the Act. It was submitted that the right of redemption stood extinguished. Section 13(8) of the Act provides that the mortgaged property can be redeemed before the date fixed for sale or transfer. 5.8 It was submitted that the auction already had been conducted and all the legal formalities regarding the sale has been completed and the sale certificate is also issued in favour of the auction purchaser i.e. respondent No.2 herein. In view thereof, the right of the petitioner regarding redemption of the mortgaged property ceased once the sale certificate came to be issued on 9.11.2011. In view thereof, the right of the petitioner regarding redemption of the mortgaged property ceased once the sale certificate came to be issued on 9.11.2011. 5.9 It was submitted that the respondent Bank filed the application below Section 14 of the Act for taking physical possession to enable the Bank to hand over the property in question to the auction purchaser and which was not fresh cause of action. 5.10 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it was submitted that no interference is called for in the concurrent findings arrived at by the competent authorities. 5.11 Mr. Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent Bank placed reliance on the following decisions :- (a) In the case of ITC Limited Versus Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., reported in (2018) 15 SCC 99 , (b) In the case of Dwarika Prasad Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2018) 5 SCC 491 (c) In the case of Celir Llp Versus Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt.Ltd.And Others, reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1 It was submitted that it is not even the case of the petitioner that the sale is confirmed by any fraud or collusion. It is only in such cases that there would be interference in the action undertaken by the respondent Bank under the SARFESI Act. 6. Mr. Vijay Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 auction purchaser submitted that the respondent No.2 herein is a bonafide purchaser having purchased the property in question pursuant to public auction held by the respondent No.1 Bank, sale certificate is also issued to the respondent No.2 herein on 9.11.2011. It is submitted that the petitioner herein did not prefer to challenge the said measure also under Section 17 of the SARFESI Act within stipulated time of 45 days and, therefore, the sale stood concluded in favour of the respondent No.2 herein and all the measures taken till the sale of the secured asset attained finality, the same having remained unchallenged. 6.1 Mr. Patel, the learned advocate reiterated and supported the submissions advanced by Mr. Lalit Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 Bank. Mr. Vijay Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 also placed reliance on the ratio as laid down in (2024) 2 SCC 1 . 6.1 Mr. Patel, the learned advocate reiterated and supported the submissions advanced by Mr. Lalit Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 Bank. Mr. Vijay Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 also placed reliance on the ratio as laid down in (2024) 2 SCC 1 . 6.2 It is lastly submitted that the respondent No.1 has also entered into the sale deed with the respondent No.2 on 28.1.2012. It was submitted that the petitioner herein having not initiated any action pursuant to the auction conducted by the respondent No.1 Bank under Section 13(8) of the Act has lost the right of redemption and it is now not open for the petitioner herein to object having not objected at the relevant point of time. The petitioner herein approached the Tribunal by filing S.A. No.39 of 2013 after the respondent No.1 Bank approached the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad who passed order under Section 14 of the Act on 30.3.2013 for taking physical possession of the property in question. The same came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 7.9.2013 which was subject matter of challenge before the learned DRAT wherein the learned Appellate Tribunal also rejected the appeal being Appeal No.264 of 2013 by impugned order dated 16.1.2024. 6.3 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it was submitted that the respondent No.2 herein is bonafide auction purchaser since the year 2011 and sale deed is also executed by the respondent No.1 Bank with the respondent No.2 herein and having deposited the entire amount to the tune of Rs.26,51,000/-. The present petition is required to be dismissed. 7. In rejoinder Mr. Chauhan, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the present petition and submitted that the petitioner herein has shown readiness and willingness before the learned Tribunal by depositing the demand draft of Rs.5,00,000/- on 5.8.2013, however the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the petitioner’s request. In view thereof, both the DRT and DRAT erred in not considering the request of the petitioner and in view thereof the prayers as prayed for in the present petition be allowed. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the petitioner herein availed the cash credit facility in the respondent No.1 Bank of Rs.3,00,000/- in the year 1997. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the petitioner herein availed the cash credit facility in the respondent No.1 Bank of Rs.3,00,000/- in the year 1997. The petitioner was not in a position to make the payment regularly to the respondent No.1 Bank and in view thereof the account of the petitioner was declared as NPA 30.3.2003. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act came to be issued by the respondent No.1 Bank on 20.11.2004 demanding an amount of Rs.4,06,242.96 ps. 8.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the said notice was never issued to the petitioner herein. It appears that pursuant thereof the petitioner herein filed S.A. No.23 of 2013 challenging the notice issued by the respondent No.1 Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act on the ground that the said notice was not received by the petitioner. The said S.A. No.23 of 2013 came to be dismissed by the learned DRT. In the course of hearing upon asking the question to Mr. Lalit Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 Bank, Mr. Patel, the learned advocate stated that the same was dismissed by the learned Tribunal upon coming to a conclusion that notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was duly served to the petitioner. 8.2 Thereafter the respondent No.1 Bank took symbolic possession of the property in question on 5.8.2010 and sale of secured asset of Rs.26,51,000/- to the respondent No.2 by way of public auction and issued sale certificate on 9.11.2011 under the provisions of SARFESI Act and the Rules therein. Upon conclusion of sale of the secured asset on 9.11.2011, the petitioner herein did not challenge the said measures under Section 17 of the SARFESI Act within stipulated time of 45 days and, therefore, the said sale stood concluded and all the measures taken till the sale of the secured asset attained finality as the same remain unchallenged. The respondent No.1 Bank also entered into a sale deed with the respondent No.2 on 28.1.2012. The respondent No.1 Bank also entered into a sale deed with the respondent No.2 on 28.1.2012. Since the secured assets were sold to the respondent No.2 on the basis of symbolic possession, the respondent No.1 Bank was required to hand over possession of the secured asset and in view thereof the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, by preferring an application under Section 14 of the SARFESI Act who was pleased to pass the order for taking physical possession of the property in question. The petitioner herein after one and half year of sale challenged the order dated 30.3.2013 by way of Securitization Application No.39 of 2013 before the DRT, Ahmedabad under Section 17 of the SARFESI Act. 8.3 The petitioner filed an application below Ex.A/11 requesting the Tribunal to direct the respondent No.1 Bank to accept the total outstanding dues and redeem the mortgaged property. The Tribunal held that right of redemption ceases once the sale certificate is issued and that apart Securitization Application itself was held to be time barred as the respondent No.1 Bank issued sale certificate to the respondent No.2 on 9.11.2011 whereby the learned DRT rejected the Securitization Application by order dated 17.9.2013. 9. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner herein approached the learned Tribunal by preferring Securitization Application No.39 of 2013 which came to be rejected by the learned DRT on the grounds that : (a) The Section 13(2) notice was duly served to the petitioner herein. (b) The Tribunal held that the objection raised by the petitioner that the respondent No.1 did not take any steps for interregnum period of 07 years and on 5.8.2010 has taken measures under Section 13(4) of the Act. (c) The learned Tribunal held that the aforesaid action would not deter the secured creditor from taking any action upon lapse of seven years. (d) It is held that by not taking action for seven years the respondent has granted time to the petitioner to repay the outstanding dues. (e) It is further held by the learned Tribunal that as far as redemption of mortgaged property is concerned, the aforesaid is to be considered under Section 13(8) of the Act. (f) It is held that the mortgaged property can be redeemed before the date fixed for sale or transfer. (e) It is further held by the learned Tribunal that as far as redemption of mortgaged property is concerned, the aforesaid is to be considered under Section 13(8) of the Act. (f) It is held that the mortgaged property can be redeemed before the date fixed for sale or transfer. (g) It is held by the learned Tribunal that the auction had already been conducted all the legal formalities regarding sale has been completed. The sale certificate has also been issued to the successful auction purchaser and in view thereof the petitioner’s right of redemption of mortgaged property ceases once sale certificate is issued. (h) It is further held that the securitization application is also time barred as the sale certificate was issued on 9.11.2011. (i) It is further held that merely because the respondent filed application under Section 14 of the Act before the CMM for taking physical possession to enable the respondent No.1 to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the auction purchaser would not give rise to fresh cause of action. In light of the aforesaid findings the S.A. No.39 of 2013 came to be dismissed by order dated 17.9.2013. 9.1 It is apposite to refer to paragraphs 7 to 10 of the order dated 17.9.203. “(7) Following issues arises for my determination and finding thereon are as under :- 1. Whether applicant proves that respondent has committed error while taking measures under the SARAFAESI Act? : No 2. Whether applicant is entitled for redemption of the mortgaged property? : No 3 What order? : As per the operative order REASONS (8) Applicant, being aggrieved by the measures taken by the respondent under the provisions of the SARFASI Act, has instituted this Securitization Application. It is well known fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Maradia Chemicals Versus Union of India has mandated the Tribunal to act as an appellate authority as far as determining and deciding the legality of the measures taken under the SARFAESI Act is concerned. Ld. Advocate for the applicant in support of his claim made in the Securitization Application has submitted that respondent has not served the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is concerned. Ld. Advocate for the respondent has submitted that applicant was well aware about the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is concerned. Ld. Advocate for the applicant in support of his claim made in the Securitization Application has submitted that respondent has not served the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is concerned. Ld. Advocate for the respondent has submitted that applicant was well aware about the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is concerned. I have gone through the reply filed by the respondent and the correspondence exchanged between applicant as well as respondent. On perusal of the same, it is discerned that the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was served on the applicant. There is no force and merit in the case made by the applicant regarding non issuance of notice to the applicant. It is also the case of the applicant that initially respondent has taken action under the SARFAESI Act on 20.11.2003 by issuing a demand notice. Thereafter for almost of seven years respondent did not take any action and on 05.08,2010, after the gape of seven years has taken the measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act which is not legal and proper. On perusal Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act as also on perusal of the Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act I do not find any provision which deter the secured creditor from taking further action after the lapse of seven years. By not taking action for more than 7 years, the respondent has on the contrary given time to the applicant to repay the outstanding dues. Hence, this plea is also not tenable in the eye of law. As far as the order passed by the Ld. CMM is concerned, the same is judicious and in tenable. In short, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the measures taken by the respondent under the provision of the SARFAESI Act. (9) Applicant has filed an application Exb. A/11 requesting the Tribunal to issue direction to the respondent for accepting total outstanding dues and redeem the mortgage property. As far as the redemption of mortgage property is concerned there is a provision in Sub section 8 of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. Even in the Transfer of Property Act, there is a provision for redemption of mortgage. A/11 requesting the Tribunal to issue direction to the respondent for accepting total outstanding dues and redeem the mortgage property. As far as the redemption of mortgage property is concerned there is a provision in Sub section 8 of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. Even in the Transfer of Property Act, there is a provision for redemption of mortgage. However, on perusal of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act it has become explicitly clear that the mortgage property can be redeemed before the date fixed for sale or transfer. In this case, the auction has already been conducted and all the legal formalities regarding sale has been completed. Even the Sale Certificate has been issued in favour of the successful auction purchaser. Legally speaking the right of the applicant regarding redemption of the mortgage property is ceased once the sale certificate is issued. This apart, Securitization Application is time barred as the respondent has issued the sale certificate on 09.11.2011. Merely because the respondent filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Ld. CMM for taking physical possession to enable it to hand over vacant and peaceful physical possession to the purchaser, it does not give a fresh cause of action. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in this regard that by filing an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, a fgi cause of action to file a Securitization Application will arise is not applicable in the present case. Application filed by the applicant is, therefore, required to be rejected. (10) In nutshell, on perusal of the measures initiated by the respondent I do not find any infirmity or illegality. Respondent has taken the measures by adhering to the provision of the SARFAESI Act. In view of the foregoing, as there is no merit in the case, the Securitization Application is required to be dismissed.” 10. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the said order approached the learned DRAT by preferring Appeal No.264 of 2013 which also came to be rejected by the learned DRAT confirming the findings arrived at by the learned DRT. In view of the foregoing, as there is no merit in the case, the Securitization Application is required to be dismissed.” 10. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the said order approached the learned DRAT by preferring Appeal No.264 of 2013 which also came to be rejected by the learned DRAT confirming the findings arrived at by the learned DRT. The learned DRAT while passing the impugned order also held that the S.A. No.39 of 2013 filed consequent to the issuing of the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the CMM was the successive application under Section 17 of the Act after the dismissal of S.A. No.23 of 2013. 10.1 It is further held that the appellant failed to point out any infirmity in the order passed by the CMM under Section 14 of the Act. It is also held that it was not sustainable on the part of the petitioner - appellant wherein the appellant himself had written letter on 18.4.2004 admitting the liability and seeking time to make payment. 10.2 It is held that the petitioner – appellant issued post- dated cheque in discharge of the liability. The aforesaid action of the petitioner amounts to waiver of his contention regarding non-receipt of the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act issued by the respondent Bank. The acknowledgment card received from the respondent Bank indicates that the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was duly served to the petitioner herein and in view thereof the said Appeal also came to be rejected. 10.3 It is apposite to refer to paragraphs 6 and 7 which read thus :- “6. The most important point that arises for consideration in this appeal is the maintainability of a successive application under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by the Appellant after the dismissal of his earlier S.A. No. 23 of 2013. In consequence of the dismissal of that S.A, all contentions raised by the Appellant in the S.A. is deemed to have been disallowed. Therefore, It is impossible for him to come up with contentions raised in the S.A., all over again. The present S.A. No. 39 of 2013 was filed consequent to the issuing of the order under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the CMM. The Appellant can maintain an appeal by challenging the order of the CMM. Therefore, It is impossible for him to come up with contentions raised in the S.A., all over again. The present S.A. No. 39 of 2013 was filed consequent to the issuing of the order under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the CMM. The Appellant can maintain an appeal by challenging the order of the CMM. The Appellant has not however pointed out any infirmity in that order of the CMM. The contention was raised as to whether the bank could have applied to;section 14 after taking symbolic possession and selling the secured asset. This position is no longer Res Integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITC Ltd vs. Blue Coast Hotels Lid e Ors (2018) 15 SCC 99 held that the secured creditor has the right to take actual possession of the secured assets after taking symbolic possession and conducting the sale of the property. 7. Even going into the merits of the other contentions raised by the Appellant, it is not sustainable the Appellant has himself written a letter on 18/08/2004 admitting his liability and seeking time to make the payment. The Appellant issued post dated cheques in the discharge of the liability. This action on the part of the Appellant would amount to a waiver of his contentions regarding the non-receipt of the demand Notice issued by the bank. The acknowledgment card received by the bank indicates that the demand notice has been served. The contentions raised by the Appellant and therefore unsustainable, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the D.R.T. The appeal is without any merits and is, therefore, dismissed.” 11. In the facts of the present case and in light of the aforesaid discussion wherein the petitioner filed the Securitization Application challenging the order passed under Section 14 of the Act dated 30.3.2013 for taking physical possession of the property in favour of the respondent No.1. The aforesaid action is undertaken by the petitioner herein after the auction proceedings were concluded, sale certificate issued in favour of the auction purchaser on 9.11.2011 and sale deed came to be entered into between the respondents No.1 and 2. 12. Upon perusal of the documents on record it emerges that due procedure is followed. The aforesaid action is undertaken by the petitioner herein after the auction proceedings were concluded, sale certificate issued in favour of the auction purchaser on 9.11.2011 and sale deed came to be entered into between the respondents No.1 and 2. 12. Upon perusal of the documents on record it emerges that due procedure is followed. The petitioner herein has chosen not to challenge the auction proceedings at the stage of Section 13(8) of the Act which provides that for redemption of the mortgaged property action is required to be taken before the date is fixed for sale or transfer. 13. It is apposite to refer to Section 13(8) of the Act which reads thus :- “13 Enforcement of security interest.— (8) Where the amount of dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him is tendered to the secured creditor at any time before the date of publication of notice for public auction or inviting quotations or tender from public or private treaty for transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale of the secured assets,— (i) the secured assets shall not be transferred by way of lease assignment or sale by the secured creditor; and (ii) in case, any step has been taken by the secured creditor for transfer by way of lease or assignment or sale of the assets before tendering of such amount under this sub-section, no further step shall be taken by such secured creditor for transfer by way of lease or assignment or sale of such secured assets.” 14. The aforesaid was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Celir Llp Versus Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. And Others, reported in (2024) 2 SCC page-1, paragraphs- 64, 97 to 100 read thus :- “64. We are of the view that the failure on the part of the borrower in tendering the entire dues including the charges, interest, costs etc. before the publication of the auction notice as required by Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, would also sufficiently constitute extinguishment of right of redemption of mortgage by the act of parties as per the proviso to Section 60 of the Act 1882. Furthermore, in the case on hand, there was no claim for right of redemption by the borrower either before the publication of the auction notice or even thereafter. Furthermore, in the case on hand, there was no claim for right of redemption by the borrower either before the publication of the auction notice or even thereafter. The borrowers entered into the fray only after coming to know of the confirmation of auction. Be that as it may, once the Section 13(8) stage was over and auction stood concluded, it could be said that there was an intentional relinquishment of his right of redemption under Section 13(8), whereby the Bank declared the appellant as the successful auction purchaser having offered the highest bid in accordance with the terms of the auction notice. 97. This Court has time and again, reminded the High Courts that they should not entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. This Court in Satyawati Tondon (supra) made the following observations: "43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. xxx xxx xxx 55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection. " 98. In Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 , this Court in para 15 made the following observations: "15. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection. " 98. In Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 , this Court in para 15 made the following observations: "15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [ AIR 1964 SC 1419 ], Titaghur Paper Mills case [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. " 99. In Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors. reported in (2022) 5 SCC 345 , it was observed as under: "18. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a writ petition against the private financial institution ARC the appellant herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proposed action/actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be not maintainable. In the present case, the ARC proposed to take action/actions under the SARFAESI Act to recover the borrowed amount as a secured creditor. The ARC as such cannot be said to be performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. In the present case, the ARC proposed to take action/actions under the SARFAESI Act to recover the borrowed amount as a secured creditor. The ARC as such cannot be said to be performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lent the money to the borrowers herein and therefore the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. Therefore, decisions of this Court in Praga Tools Corpn. [Praga Tools Corpn. v C.A. Imanual, (1969) 1 SCC 585 ] and Ramesh Ahluwalia [Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2012) 12 SCC 331 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 456 : 4 SCEC 715] relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the borrowers are not of any assistance to the borrowers. xxx xxx xxx 21. Applying the law laid down by this Court in Mathew K.C. [State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 41] to the facts on hand, we are of the opinion that filing of the writ petitions by the borrowers before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the court. The writ petitions have been filed against the proposed action to be taken under Section 13(4). As observed hereinabove, even assuming that the communication dated 13-82015 was a notice under Section 13(4), in that case also, in view of the statutory, efficacious remedy available by way of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions. Even the impugned orders passed by the High Court directing to maintain the status quo with respect to the possession of the secured properties on payment of Rs 1 crore only (in all Rs 3 crores) is absolutely unjustifiable. The dues are to the extent of approximately Rs 117 crores. Even the impugned orders passed by the High Court directing to maintain the status quo with respect to the possession of the secured properties on payment of Rs 1 crore only (in all Rs 3 crores) is absolutely unjustifiable. The dues are to the extent of approximately Rs 117 crores. The ad interim relief has been continued since 2015 and the secured creditor is deprived of proceeding further with the action under the Sarfaesi Act. Filing of the writ petition by the borrowers before the High Court is nothing but an abuse of process of court. It appears that the High Court has initially granted an ex parte ad interim order mechanically and without assigning any reasons. The High Court ought to have appreciated that by passing such an interim order, the rights of the secured creditor to recover the amount due and payable have been seriously prejudiced. The secured creditor and/or its assignor have a right to recover the amount due and payable to it from the borrowers. The stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of the secured creditor/assignor. Therefore, the High Court should have been extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion while granting stay in such matters. In these circumstances, the proceedings before the High Court deserve to be dismissed. " 100. In Varimadugu OBI Reddy (supra), it was held as under: "36. In the instant case, although the respondent borrowers initially approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, but the order of the Tribunal indeed was appealable under Section 18 of the Act subject to the compliance of condition of pre- deposit and without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal, the respondent borrowers approached the High Court by filing the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. We deprecate such practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the law. This circuitous route appears to have been adopted to avoid the condition of pre-deposit contemplated under 2nd proviso to Section 18 of the 2002 Act.” 15. We deprecate such practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the law. This circuitous route appears to have been adopted to avoid the condition of pre-deposit contemplated under 2nd proviso to Section 18 of the 2002 Act.” 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has categorically held that upon failure on the part of the borrower in tendering the entire dues before the publication of the auction notice, as required under Section 13(8) of the Act, would sufficiently constitute extinguishment or acquisition of right of redemption of the mortgage by the act of the parties. 16. In the facts of the present case, undisputedly no action is undertaken by the petitioner herein for challenging the action of the respondent Bank at the stage of Section 13(8) of the Act. Upon perusal of the communication issued by the petitioner herein dated 19.10.2011 the petitioner herein has undertaken to deposit an amount Rs.16,760/- which is also undisputed. From the Bank statement which is produced by the respondent No.1 herein, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner herein deposited the entire amount and the same is undisputed. 17. In light of the aforesaid settled position of law and the facts of the present case, both the Tribunals i.e. DRT by order dated 17.9.2013 and DRAT dated 16.1.2024 have arrived at the findings of fact that the petitioner herein was duly served with the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and no interference is called for, for the order passed under Section 14 of the Act by CMM dated 30.3.2013. On perusal of the impugned orders, the findings arrived at by both the competent Tribunals are concurrent in nature and this Court would not sit in Appeal over the said orders wherein, in the opinion of this Court, there is no error can be said to have been committed either in law or facts. 18. The present petition fails and the same stands dismissed. 19. The respondent No.1 Bank is directed to refund to the petitioner herein residual amount, if any, received by the respondent No.1 from the sale proceeds of the secured property.