IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 111 of 2010 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.10791/2009 Dated 19/01/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- K.S. SHIBU,KONCHERY HOUSE, MAYITHARA P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. K.S. SUSHAMA, MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, S.L. PURAM P.O., CHERTHALA. 3. K.S. SHEELA, CHARANGATTU BUNGLOW, KANICHUKULANGARA P.O., CHERTHALA. 4. K.S. SHYLA, POONATH HOUSE, ARTHUNGAL P.O., CHERTHALA. 5. K.S. SHINY, KONCHERY HOUSE, MAYITHARA P.O., CHERTHALA. 6. DR. K.S. SUBHASH, 'SREEVALSAM HOUSE', MAYITHARA P.O., CHERTHALA. 7. K.S. SANJEEV, KONCHERY HOUSE, MAYITHARA P.O., CHERTHALA. 8. SAVITHRI M., -DO- -DO- R1 BY SRI. SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC, SBT. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No. 111 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19th January, 2010, declining to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of alternate remedy, the present writ appeal is filed. 2. The appellant against whom proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' for short) have been initiated, approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act intimating him regarding the taking over possession of seven items of properties mortgaged. Considering the fact that the appellant/petitioner has got an effective alternate remedy by way W.A. No.111 of 2010 2 of appeal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, in our view, the learned Single Judge was justified in not entertaining the writ petition. 3. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that certain observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment would affect the rights of the appellant and impair consideration of the appeal by the appellate authority. We make it clear the appellate Tribunal shall consider the matter afresh untrammelled by any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge on merits or demerits of the case. It is also further contended that as the appellant is seeking a limited relief of saving part of one of the properties, atleast relief in this respect can be considered by this Court. As we have observed, the question of considering grant of relief would be only after the Court entertains the writ appeal. As we do not find any ground to entertain this appeal on the face of the availability of equitable and efficacious remedy W.A. No.111 of 2010 3 by way of appeal, except observing that it is open for the appellate authority to consider this request also, we dismiss the writ appeal. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns