IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37401 of 2010(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SMT.ROSAMMA TONY, W/O. T.A.TONY, THADIKKARAN HOUSE, EDATHIRUTHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 703. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002, STATE BANK OF INDIA, KARALAM BRANCH, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 711. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, KARALAM BRANCH, N.S.S. KARAYOGAM BUILDING, THRISSUR-680 711. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011, ALONG WITH WPC. NO. 37413 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) Nos.37401/2010 & 37413/2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner in W.P(C) No.37413/2010 is the son of the petitioner in W.P(C) No.37401/2010. Both the petitioners had availed two distinct loans from the respondents, and consequent to default committed in repayment, steps under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Challenge in both these writ petitions is against the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. 2. Going by the Scheme of the statute, it is evident that the petitioners have got a right to object the demand or to make any representation before the Bank proposing settlement. It is further noticed that if any such objection/representation is received, the respondents are at an obligation to consider the same and to take a decision W.P(C) Nos.37401/2010 & 37413/2010 2 thereon. If the petitioners are aggrieved by such decision and if any further coercive steps are pursued, the petitioners have got effective remedy as provided under Section 17(1). Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that it is highly improper for this Court to entertain challenge against the notice issued under Section 13(2), and hence the writ petitions are highly premature and devoid of any merit. 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay off the liability provided the Bank considers their request for settlement of the account by allowing considerable waiver and also on allowing sufficient time for effecting payment. Therefore, the petitioners seek interference of this Court to issue necessary directions in this regard. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners can be given liberty to approach the Bank with such offers. This is especially because of the fact that the Bank has not so far taken any W.P(C) Nos.37401/2010 & 37413/2010 3 further steps pursuant to the notices already issued under Section 13(2). 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, it is made clear that if the petitioners approach the appropriate authority in the respondent Bank, within a period of two weeks from today, with any request for one time settlement on waiver of any amounts or for regularisation of the account, the same shall be considered and a decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioners. 6. Needless to say that any further coercive steps of recovery can be pursued only after taking such decision and intimating the same to the petitioners. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab