IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31742 of 2010(P) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- COODS AGRO PVT. LTD., MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, P.B.NO.2, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 502, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, JOSHY GEORGE KONDODY. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN SRI.RAJI VINCENT RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER/(AUTHORISED OFFICER), KOTTAYAM MAIN BRANCH, KOTTAYAM-686 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.DILIP, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 31742 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this Writ Petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner company had availed a cash credit facility from the respondent Bank during the year 2002. Apart from plant and machinery of the industrial unit owned by the company, immovable property was also mortgaged in order to secure the loan transaction. Consequent to default committed in repayments in the loan account, the respondent Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Ext.P2 is the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act demanding payment of a sum of Rs.1,51,24,058.62/- and a further sum of Rs.4,34,000/- along with future interest. On receipt of Ext.P2, the petitioner submitted objections 2 WP(C) No. 31742/2010 as evidenced from Ext.P3. 2. It was specifically contended that the property which is being proceeded against is an agricultural land which is exempted from the purview of the SARFAESI Act by virtue of Section 31 (i) of the said Act. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering such objection, the Bank proceeded with further steps and notice was published as per Ext.P4 intimating steps as contemplated under Section 13 (4) of the Act. During pendency of this writ Petition, the respondent Bank has issued a further notice as provided under Rule 8 (6) of the Security Interest and Enforcement Rules 2002 threatening with further steps for sale of the property in question. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has got an effective remedy as provided under Section 17 (1) of the Act to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The allegation that the secured asset is 3 WP(C) No. 31742/2010 an agricultural land, is refuted. It is contended that there is chronic default in payment of the amounts due to the Bank and the arrears has now been mounted up to a huge amount. 4. Question whether the secured asset is an agricultural land or not, is a matter which need be decided on the basis of facts and evidences. Appreciation of evidences both factual and documentary is absolutely necessary. Further, I am of the opinion that the remedy provided under Section 17 (1) is efficacious and there is no reason to entertain the dispute in this Writ Petition, bypassing such remedy. Since Ext.P5 notice has been issued threatening further steps under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner can very well approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal challenging such steps under the provisions of Section 17 (1). Therefore I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be relegated to the statutory remedy in order to redress his grievance. 4 WP(C) No. 31742/2010 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal invoking statutory remedy under Section 17 (1) of the Act. It is made clear that all the contentions raised herein are left open. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc