ANNAM STEELS P LTD & ORS v CANARA BANK & PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** ## **MONDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1943** ## **W.A.NO.174 OF 2022** AGAINST THE JUDT. DATED 3.1.2022 IN WPC 21892/21 ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - 1 ANNAM STEELS P LTD, 1. MS ANNAM STEELS P LTD , OFFICE AT 11-40E, FASHION TOWER, CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR E.T.FIROZ, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 - 2 E.T.FIROZ, SON OF .E.T.MUHAMMED BASHEER, SOUMYA, 2-1788A FLORICAN ROAD, KALATHI AVENUE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPARAMBU, KOZHIKODE - 673 030, PIN - 673030 - 3 A.T.MOHAMMED ALI, SON OF AHAMMED A.T., NADUVILAKANDI KURACKAL HOUSE, - 12-61, KUTTIKKATTOR P.O. KOZHIKODE - 673 008., PIN - 673008 - 4 MOHAMMED FAVAS, SON OF KUNHI MOIDEEN KUTTY, FLAT NO 12 B, SKYLINE OCEANIC, OCEANIC, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 032, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673032 - 5 ANNEES ADAM.K.M., SON OF T.MUNEER, KOYAPPATHODI VILLA, KRISHNAN NAIR ROAD, MALIKADAVU, NEAR GOVT. ITI, KOZHIKODE -673010. KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673010 - 6 SYED MOHAMMED THAYYIL, SON OF .THAYYIL KHADAR HAJI THAYYIL HOUSE, KATTACHIRA, B.P.ANGADI P.O. VENGALOOR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM - 676 102., PIN - 676102 - 7 V K ABDUL RAZZACK, SON OF MUHAMMED, BARIKODAN HOUSE, ERNAD, MALAPPURAM- 673639, BY ADV ANESH PAUL ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 CANARA BANK, CHEROOTY ROAD BRANCH, COURT ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 - 2 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, EROTH CENTRE, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 BY ADV C.AJITH KUMAR, sc THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 174 OF 2022 :: 2 :: ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 21[st] day of March 2022 ## **S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.** The captioned appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P. (C)No.21892/2021 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3.1.2022 whereby, the writ petition was dismissed holding that a fresh notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation Act is not required, after adjudication of the debt by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in T.A.44/2017, especially since there was no finding in the final order of the DRT, contrary to the claim in the notices issued by the Banks. 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The appellants 2 to 7 are the Directors of the first appellant company. The first appellant company availed a credit facility from the Canara Bank Limited, Kozhikode and Punjab National Bank Limited, Kozhikode – respondents 1 and 2 under a consortium facility. The repayment of the loan was defaulted and consequent to which, recovery action was initiated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to recover an amount of Rs.1,63,89,66,756.54/-. 3. In fact Ext.P1 application was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal seeking recovery of the said amount along with cost, interest, WA NO. 174 OF 2022 :: 3 :: etc. Prior to the sale, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was initiated. Thereafter, the respondent banks approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode by filing Ext.P4 application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 4. According to the appellants, Exts.P2 and P3 demands were raised and application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 were based on the terms of the original contract governing the sanctioning of the credit facility. However, the grievance of the appellants is that notwithstanding the pendency of Ext.P1 application, the banks proceeded with Ext.P4 application to take possession of the mortgaged property before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode. 5. On the basis of Ext.P4 application, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 22.4.2017 passed Ext.P5 order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the secured assets. Exts.P4 and P5 orders were challenged by the appellants in S.A.No.111/2017 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Apparently, the securitization application was admitted to the files and an interim order was granted but later, Ext.P1 application was disposed of, by the Debt Recovery Tribunal by Ext.P6 order holding that the parties agreed that the bank can initiate/continue WA NO. 174 OF 2022 :: 4 :: the proceedings only after the disposal of the original applications. 6. Later, the Debt Recovery Tribunal passed Ext.P7 order dated 28.9.2020 in Ext.P1 application by allowing the respondents to recover an amount of Rs.161,61,00,378.76/- with interest at the rate of 14%p.a. Apparently, it was further ordered in Ext.P7 that an amount of Rs.35,91,72,323/- with accrued interest shall be deducted from the O.A. claim and for the balance amount only the recovery certificate would be issued. 7. Various contentions are raised by the appellants including that the banks attempted to mislead the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by stating that the stay has been vacated and accordingly further proceedings may be taken in order to recover the amounts. 8. The basic question raised by the appellants in the writ petition as well as in the appeal is that since as per Ext.P7 order, the amount shown in the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is varied considerably, without a fresh notice in contemplation of the provisions of the Securitisation Act, 2002 no proceeding can be initiated against the appellants legally. The learned Single Judge, after analysing the various issues raised by the parties and taking into account WA NO. 174 OF 2022 :: 5 :: the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its various judgments raised two issues: 1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable. 2. Whether a fresh notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act is required after adjudication of the debt by the DRT in T.A.No.44/2017. 9. In so far as the first issue is concerned, the learned Single Judge found that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, a writ petition is maintainable. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, the learned Single Judge has arrived at the following conclusions: “19. Though the consortium of banks had issued separate notices under section 13(2) of the Act, putting forth separate demands with separate interest rates, they, together, as a consortium, filed the original application, invoking the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,1993 (for short, 'RDB Act'). Section 19(1) of the RDB Act, provides for an application to the Tribunal for recovery of any debt. 20. The word 'debt' is defined in section 2(g) of the RDB Act as follows: 2(g)"debt" means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil Court or any arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of the application and includes any liability towards debt securities which remains unpaid in full or part after notice of ninety days served upon the borrower WA NO. 174 OF 2022 :: 6 :: by the debenture trustee or any other authority in whose favour security interest is created for the benefit of holders of debt securities or; 21. Thus, on a perusal of the aforementioned provisions of the RDB Act, it is clear that the application filed by the consortium of banks before the DRT on 05.08.2016 was to recover the debt due from the petitioners. 22. In contrast, under section 13 of the Securitisation Act, proceedings can be initiated for enforcing the security interest without the intervention of the court. As per section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act, when a borrower makes any default in repayment of the secured debt or any instalment thereof, and his account relating to such debt is classified as non-performing, then the secured creditor, by notice in writing, must call upon the borrower to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor. 23. The total amount demanded by the banks separately under Section 13(2) of the Act was Rs.163,89,66,756.54. However, when the original application was decided, the Tribunal directed two modifications. The interest payable from the date of filing of the application was reduced from 14.65% to 14% and further directed deduction of Rs.35,91,72,323/- which amount became receivable by the borrower due to the acquisition of one of the properties over which security interest had been created. 24. Three words of significance are evident in section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act. They are (i) non-performing asset, (ii) debt, and (iii) liabilities. The word 'non-performing asset' is defined in section 2(o) of the Securitisation Act as meaning “an asset or account which has been classified as substandard or doubtful or loss as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India”, while the word 'debt' is defined in section 2(ha) as having the same meaning assigned to it in section 2(g) of the RDB Act. The word 'debt' is a term of wide import, which includes any liability due from a person in any form, whether payable under a decree or otherwise and which is legally recoverable. 25. From an appreciation of the aforementioned provisions in the RDB Act and the Securitisation Act, it can be understood that the word 'debt' has the same meaning in both statutes. The said word cannot therefore be interpreted differently. Once an account is declared as nonperforming and when the notice under section 13(2) is issued specifying the amount, the borrower is bound to discharge the entire liability, to overcome the rigour of the Securitisation Act. WA NO. 174 OF 2022 :: 7 :: 26. The provision in section 13(2) of the Act is explicit that a partial discharge of the debt specified in section 13(2) notice is not sufficient to discharge the liability of the borrower. A partpayment of the amount, under whatever mode is also not sufficient to discharge the debt due. 27. If after issuance of section 13(2) notice, the bank itself initiates proceedings under the RDB Act for recovery of any debt and invites an adjudication on the quantum of debt due to it, they cannot thereafter turn around and proceed to demand or enforce security interest for any amount, more than what is quantified by the Tribunal. Fairness of the lender demands that the bank ought not to be permitted to recover anything more than what has already been quantified by the Tribunal. Therefore, on an appreciation of the various statutory provisions, this Court is of the view that once the DRT quantifies the debt due from the borrower, on the basis of an application under section 19 of the RDB Act, the bank is not entitled to seek enforcement of the security interest for any amount more than what is quantified. 28. In Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [(2004) 4 SCC 311], referring to instances when the quantum of amount due is disputed, it was observed that “the question of difference in amount may be kept open and got decided before the sale of property”. 29. In this context, the decision in Transcore v. Union of India and Another [(2008) 1 SCC 125] assumes relevance. While finding that there is no repugnancy nor inconsistency between the two remedies under the RDB Act and the Securitisation Act, the Supreme Court observed that “Together they constitute one remedy and, therefore, the doctrine of election does not apply.” 30. Hence, the respondents cannot proceed to recover any amount more than what has been quantified by the Tribunal in T.A No. 44 of 2017. 31. However, the question involved in the present case is on a different tangent. Acquisition of one of the secured assets took place after the notices under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act were issued. An amount of Rs.35,91,72,323/- received towards compensation for land acquisition was directed by the Tribunal to be deposited in a fixed deposit yielding interest. By order dated 11.06.2020, the amount of compensation along with accrued interest was directed to be appropriated by the Bank. Petitioner contends that, the direction in the final order of the DRT in T.A WA NO. 174 OF 2022 :: 8 :: No.44 of 2017 directing deduction of the amount of compensation received and the reduction in the _pendente lite_ interest must necessarily result in an extinguishment of the existing demand under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act. I am afraid I cannot agree to the said proposition for more reasons than one. 32. First and foremost reason is that, at the time the notice under section 13(2) was issued, no quantification of the debt due had taken place. The amount demanded as on the date of issuance of notice was in terms of the contract and was, in fact, correct, as subsequently found in T.A. No.44 of 2017. The account had admittedly been declared as an NPA, and there was a subsisting debt and liability. The scheme of the Securitisation Act is such that though it is intended, as in the RDB Act, to recover debts due to the Banks or Financial Institutions, the remedy under that statute is treated as an additional remedy for enforcing the security interest through a non-adjudicatory process. The notices under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act was issued on 17.11.2015 and 27.12.2015 separately, while T.A. No.44 of 2017 was filed on 05.08.2016. At the time the notice was issued, the conditions essential for initiating steps under the said Act was in existence. The subsequent quantification and crystallisation of the debt due, including a reduction in the interest, that too, for the period beyond the date of notice, cannot have a bearing on the notice issued for enforcing the security interest. 33. Similarly, the receipt of compensation for acquisition is a subsequent event and cannot affect the validity of the notice. If every payment, subsequent to the notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act is treated as eroding the sanctity of notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act, a shrewd borrower will be able to defeat the provisions of the Act by making a part payment, after the notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act is issued. Acceptance of such a proposition can lead to an anomalous situation at the hands of a crafty borrower. The situation can even lead to a never ending process of recovery. Similarly, every payment by instalments or by any other mode of recovery would warrant a fresh notice to be issued. Such an interpretation will render the entire statute redundant and unworkable. 34. Further, by virtue of the subsequent events, there is no novation of contract that has taken place. The borrower, while agreeing to repay the amount due, had also undertaken to keep the margin and the value of the securities hypothecated in such a WA NO. 174 OF 2022 :: 9 :: way that there is no mismatch between the asset-liability in the books of the bank. In fact, it is the mismatch in maintaining the aforesaid asset-liability margin that attracts the provisions of the Securitisation Act. (See the decision in Transcore v. Union of India and Another [(2008) 1 SCC 125] Para 63) 35. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the amount demanded by the banks separately under Section 13(2) of the Act were Rs.163,89,66,756.54. When the original application was decided, the Tribunal found the Banks entitled to the amount claimed. However, the Tribunal directed two modifications. The first modification related only to the pendente lite interest, while the second related to the deduction of the compensation amount of Rs.35,91,72,323/-, which became payable to the borrower due to the acquisition of one of the secured assets, that too, after the notice under section 13(2) of the Act was issued. Thus, while quantifying the debt, the variance directed by DRT related to matters concerning post notice aspects. 36. In this context, it is relevant to observe that, by virtue of final order in S.A. No.111 of 2017 dated 27.11.2018, the Tribunal had directed that the initiation or continuance of the securitisation proceedings will depend upon the final outcome of the original application. On a reading of Ext.P6 order dated 27.11.2018, it is evident that, the said order only meant that the securitisation proceedings must be carried on as per the final order in T.A. No.44 of 2017. In the final order in T.A. No.44 of 2017, the only change, as observed earlier in this judgment, was relating to variance or deduction of amounts, post section 13(2) notices. Thus, the order in S.A. No.111 of 2017 has no significant bearing on the contentions raised. 37. The above deliberation leads this Court to conclude that a fresh notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act is not required, after adjudication of the debt by the DRT in T.A. No.44 of 2017, especially since there was no finding in the final order of the DRT, contrary to the claim in the notices issued by the Banks. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.” 10. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the said finding, the writ appeal is basically preferred. WA NO. 174 OF 2022 :: 10 :: 11. We have heard Mr.G.Shrikumar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants assisted by Adv.Anesh Paul for the appellants and Sri.C.Ajith Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank and perused the pleadings and material on record. 12. The issue revolves around Section 13 of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002, which reads thus: 13. Enforcement of security interest.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69-A 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 the 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). Provided that – (i) the requirement of classification of secured debt as nonperforming asset under this sub-section shall not apply to a borrower who has raised funds through issue of debt securities; and (ii) in the event of default, the debenture trustee shall be entitled to enforce security interest in the same manner as provided under this section with such modifications as may be necessary and in accordance with the terms and conditions of security documents executed in favour of the debenture trustee. (3) The notice referred to in sub- section (2) shall give details of WA NO. 174 OF 2022 :: 11 :: 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 he secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate within fifteen days 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 confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 or the Court of District Judge under Section 17-A. (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 WA NO. 174 OF 2022 :: 12 :: pay the secured debt. (5) Any payment made by any person referred to in clause (d) of sub- section (4) to the secured creditor shall give such person a valid discharge as if he has made payment to the borrower. 5-A Where the sale of an immovable property, for which a reserve price has been specified, has been postponed for want of a bid of an amount not less than such reserve price, it shall be lawful for any officer of the secured creditor, if so authorised by the secured creditor in this behalf, to bid for the immovable property on behalf of the secured creditor at any subsequent sale. 5-B Where the secured creditor, referred to in sub-section 5-A, is declared to be the purchaser of the immovable property at any subsequent sale, the amount of the purchase price shall be adjusted towards the amount of the claim of the secured creditor for which the auction of enforcement of security interest is take by the secured creditor, under sub-section (4) of Section 13. 5-C The provisions of Section 9 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) shall, as far as may be, apply to the immovable property acquired by secured creditor under sub-section 5-A. (6) Any transfer of secured asset after taking possession thereof or take over of management under sub- section (4), by the secured creditor or by the manager on behalf of the secured creditor shall vest in the transferee all rights in, or in relation to, the secured asset transferred as if the transfer had been made by the owner of such secured asset. (7) Where any action has been taken against a borrower under the provisions of sub- section (4), all costs, charges and expenses which, in the opinion of the secured creditor, have been properly incurred by him or any expenses incidental thereto, shall be recoverable from the borrower and the money which is received by the secured creditor shall, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, be held by him in trust, to be applied, firstly, in payment of such costs, charges and expenses and secondly, in discharge of the dues of the secured creditor and the residue of the money so received shall be paid to the person entitled thereto in accordance with his rights and interests. (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 WA NO. 174 OF 2022 :: 13 :: public or private treaty for transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale of the secured assets,-- (i) the secured asset shall not 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. (9) Subject to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in the case of financing of a financial asset by more than one secured creditors or joint financing of a financial asset by secured creditors, no secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise any or all of the rights conferred on him under or pursuant to subsection (4) unless exercise of such right is agreed upon by the secured creditors representing not less than sixty percent in value of the amount outstanding as on a record date and such action shall be binding on all the secured creditors: Provided that in the case of a company in liquidation, the amount realised from the sale of secured assets shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956 ): Provided further that in the case of a company being wound up on or after the commencement of this Act, the secured creditor of such company, who opts to realise his security instead of relinquishing his security and proving his debt under proviso to su- section (1) of section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956 ), may retain the sale proceeds of his secured assets after depositing the workmen's dues with the liquidator in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of that Act: Provided also that liquidator referred to in the second proviso shall intimate the secured creditor the workmen's dues in accordance with the provisions of section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956 ) and in case such workmen's dues cannot be ascertained, the liquidator shall intimate the estimated amount of workmen's dues under that section to the secured creditor and in such case the secured creditor may retain the sale proceeds of the secured assets after depositing the amount of such estimated dues with the liquidator: Provided also that in case the secured creditor deposits the WA NO. 174 OF 2022 :: 14 :: estimated amount of workmen's dues, such creditor shall be liable to pay the balance of the workmen's dues or entitled to receive the excess amount, if any, deposited by the secured creditor with the liquidator: Provided also that the secured creditor shall furnish an undertaking to the liquidator to pay the balance of the workmen's dues, if any. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub- section,- (a) " record date" means the date agreed upon by the secured creditors representing not less than sixty percent in value of the amount outstanding on such date; (b) "amount outstanding" shall include principal, interest and any other dues payable by the borrower to the secured creditor in respect of secured asset as per the books of account of the secured creditor. (10) Where dues of the secured creditor are not fully satisfied with the sale proceeds of the secured assets, the secured creditor may file an application in the form and manner as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction or a competent Court, as the case may be, for recovery of the balance amount from the borrower. (11) Without prejudice to the rights conferred on the secured creditor under or by this section, secured creditor shall be entitled to proceed against the guarantors or sell the pledged assets without first taking any of the measures specified in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (4) in relation to the secured assets under this Act. (12) The rights of a secured creditor under this Act may be exercised by one or more of his officers authorised in this behalf in such manner as may be prescribed. (13) No borrower shall, after receipt of notice referred to in subsection (2), transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise (other than in the ordinary course of his business) any of his secured assets referred to in the notice, without prior written consent of the secured creditor. 13. The provisions of Section 13(2) make it clear that a clear cut WA NO. 174 OF 2022 :: 15 :: procedure is prescribed under the Act if a debtor has failed to repay the loan availed from the banks and other financial institutions. 14. Admittedly, notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is also admitted that the bank has filed an original application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as per the provisions of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. It is also not in dispute that the entire amount claimed by the bank was not decreed by the Tribunal. However, the fact remains when a notice was issued by the bank in contemplation of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, necessarily, the entire procedure in contemplation of the said provision has to be followed by the bank. 15. Merely because the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the original application filed under Act 1993 has not granted the entire amount, as sought for, by the Bank that will not in any way prejudice or affect the action already initiated by the bank as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act 2002. 16. The remedy open to the appellants is only to challenge the said order. 17. When the statute mandates a procedure under Section 13 and 14 of the Securitisation Act, 2002 and after adjudication, an order is passed WA NO. 174 OF 2022 :: 16 :: arriving at the debt amount to be paid with interest, then there is no need to issue a fresh notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, for the reason that it would amount to altering or introducing a new procedure, than the one already prescribed. 18. It was taking into account the legal and factual circumstances the learned Single Judge has arrived at the conclusions. The sole question emerges for consideration is whether any interference is required to the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We are also of the opinion that the findings and observations are made in the judgment, by correctly applying the provisions of law in the available facts and circumstances. 19. After having assimilated the factual and legal situations, we do not think the appellants have made out any grounds for interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge there being no jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities justifiable to be interfered in an intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the High Court Act. Appeal is dismissed. **sd/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** **sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** jes