M.Katju, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned notice dated 25-11-2003 (Annexure-7 to the petition).
(3.) It is admitted that the petitioner-company took a loan from the respondent Bank, but it did not re-pay the loan amount as Scheduled. Hence the impugned notice dated 25-11-2003 was issued by the Bank to the petitioner calling upon it to pay under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act).;