IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6480 of 2011(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHIJI K.C., AGED 38 YEARS, KARIKKANATTU HOUSE, S/O. CHACKO, MANKULAM P.O., IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ADIMALY BRANCH, IDUKKI- 685 561. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, IDUKKI, ADIMALY – 685 561. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.P.V. SURENDRANATH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6480 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Recovery steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 notice is challenged in this writ petition. On a perusal of Ext.P1 it is revealed that the respondent Bank had issued only a demand notice which is styled as “final notice”, in which it is stated that on failure of the petitioner to comply with the demand, the Bank will be constrained to initiate legal action including actions contemplated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). 2. According to the petitioner, some coercive steps under the SARFAESI was already initiated eventhough no notice was served on the petitioner. But learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank on instructions submitted that no steps under the SARFAESI Act has been initiated till date. 3. Submission of the Learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay off the W.P.(C).6480/11 -2- liability in a phased manner within a reasonable time. It is left open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under the respondents seeking such relief and it is for the authority to consider and take a decision on such request. However, since the demand raised comes within the realm of contractual obligations arising out of the terms of the loan agreement, I do not find any reason warranting interference of this court at this stage. 4. Hence the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent Bank seeking appropriate relief. It is also made clear that statutory rights if any available to the petitioner against proceedings if any initiated under the SARFAESI Act is hereby reserved. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb