IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4897 of 2011(J) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- FRANCIS, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.YOHANNAN, MATHIRAPILLY HOUSE, VARAPUZHA P.O., ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RENJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. ICICI BANK LIMITED, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. JOODEN DSOUZA, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.JOEPH, PULLUVELLIL HOUSE, OLANADU KARA, ALANGADU VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 601. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.4897 of 2011-J ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3, which is the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner is a purchaser of the secured asset, which was mortgaged by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that, inspite of Ext.P1 request submitted before the 1st respondent to transfer the loan into his name, the same was not considered. 2. The transaction in the loan account comes within the realm of contractual obligations. This Court could not compel the 1st respondent to transfer the loan account into the name of anybody. Further, with respect to Ext.P3, the statute provides an effective remedy to raise objections. If any such objections is raised, the Bank is at an obligation to consider the same and issue a reply. It is noticed that the W.P(C) No.4897 of 2011-J 2 petitioner has got a further remedy under Section 17(1) if any steps is taken by the respondent Bank as contemplated under Section 13(4). 3. Under the above circumstances, it is not justified or proper on the part of this Court to interdict with the proceedings which is only at the stage of demand issued under Section 13(2). However all statutory rights available to the petitioner are hereby left open. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab