IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32787 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.SOBHA, W/O. VIJAYAN, CHRISTIAN, AGED 38, RESIDING AT MANNANTHALA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 015. 2. S.VIJAYAN, S/O. STEPHEN, AGED 45, RESIDING AT MANNANTHALA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 015. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY FINANCE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110 011. 2. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER, NEW DELHI-110 011. 3. ICICI BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 4. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, ICICI BANK LTD., STATUE BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 SRI.KKM.SHERIF FOR R3,4 SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH FOR R3,4 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN FOR R3,4 SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR) FOR R3,4 SRI.V.R.REKESH FOR R3,4 SMT.K.LEEPA PIOUS FOR R3,4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.32787 of 2010-W ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1 and P2 notices issued by the 3rd respondent Bank. Eventhough the petitioners had alleged that the 4th respondent had initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), no document is produced in support of such an allegation. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 conceded that no proceedings has been initiated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The position being so, the demand made by the 3rd respondent for payment of amounts due under the loan account, which was availed by the petitioners, could not be challenged in a writ petition. 2. The obligation of the petitioners arises out of a contract of loan entered with the 3rd respondent Bank. Since the dispute if any regarding dues in the loan account W.P(C) No.32787 of 2010-W 2 is a matter coming within a realm of contract, such dispute could not be entertained in this writ petition. Further, whether the 3rd respondent is an institution amenable to jurisdiction under Article 226 itself is doubted. Under such circumstances, it is for the petitioners to work out his remedies before the 3rd respondent Bank or before any other appropriate authority provided under common law. Hence this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to rights of the petitioners to work out appropriate remedies available under law. . C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab