IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 7537 of 2010(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. RAJAN .T.,S/O.K.P THANKAPPAN, 'ROHINI NIVAS',ERAVUKAD WARD, VADAKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. VINEETHA .S.,W/O RAJAN T., 'ROHINI NIVAS'.,ERAVUKAD WARD, VADAKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, MULLACKAL BRANCH,ALAPPUZHA., 2. S.REJASEKHARAN NAIR, CHIEF MANAGER, (AUTHORISED OFFICER), THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH. 3. SARASWATHY AMMA .K.,W/O.SADASIVAN NAIR, KULAMAKAL HOUSE, M.O.WARD.,ALAPPUZHA. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SMT.P.V.PARVATHI, SMT.REENA THOMAS, SRI.L.RAM MOHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.7537/2010-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DTD. 13/03/07. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 25/01/07. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 15/03/07. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DTD. NIL. SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.1. BANK. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S NOTICE DTD. 29/10/07 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 19/11/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 11/02/2010. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 13/05/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7537 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), and against the notice of demand issued as per Ext.P7 under Section 13(2) of the said Act. The ground on which the challenge is made is that, there was a settlement arrived at the Lok Adalat with respect to a suit filed by the 1st respondent Bank for realising the amounts due under the loan account and Ext.P1 award was passed by the Lok Adalat. It is evident that the 1st respondent Bank had admitted before the Lok Adalat for settlement of the claim, for a total sum of Rs.3,35,000/-, subject to condition of payment of the said amount on or before 17.3.2007. It is made clear in Ext.P1 that, in case of default, the Bank will be entitled to realise the original debt amount of Rs.4,20,365/- together with interest @ 15.35% per 2 W.P.(C).No.7537 of 2010 annum along with costs from the petitioners. 2. According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the above suit, nearly about two months back to the date of the settlement, a payment was effected to the tune of Rs.1 lakh, as evident from Ext.P2 receipt. Contention of the petitioners is that, the amount arrived at the Lok Adalat (Rs.3,35,000/-), is including the amount of Rs.1 lakh remitted during pendency of the suit. But according to the 1st respondent Bank, the amount was fixed excluding the payments already made. However, since the petitioners had not remitted the full amount as per the settlement, the Bank took the stand that there was no proper compliance of the terms of the settlement. Therefore the impugned proceedings are legal and justifiable, is the contention. However, it is admitted that the amount mentioned in Ext.P7 is a mistake and a rectified notice was issued as per Ext.P8, in which the total payment claimed is a sum of Rs.2,56,685/-. 3. Controversy between the parties pertains to the terms of Ext.P1 award passed by the Lok Adalat. It is 3 W.P.(C).No.7537 of 2010 evident that the petitioners have not raised any objections against Ext.P8 revised notice, issued as early as on 13.5.2010, as contemplated under Section 13(3A). However, I take notice of the fact that, even if any objection on the above mentioned grounds is made, there may not be any chance of arriving at a conclusion on the disputed issue. On the other hand, if the petitioners had got any genuine dispute regarding interpretation of the terms of the award, they have to seek appropriate steps before the court where the suit was pending, if any such method is provided under law. 4. The dispute now raised regarding correctness of the amount under demand, in a notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, could not be adjudicated by this Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is evident that the dispute mainly relates to the interpretation of the terms of Ext.P1 award, which is passed by the Lok Adalat in a civil suit which was pending before the Sub Court. Therefore, I am not 4 W.P.(C).No.7537 of 2010 inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy from appropriate court or forum is hereby reserved. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners made an appeal to this Court to show indulgence to restrain further coercive steps for a reasonable period, in order to enable the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy from appropriate forum. I noticed that, the proceedings is only at the stage of issuing demand notice under Section 13(2). However, the 1st respondent is directed to restrain from physically dispossessing and conducting sale of the property on the basis of the proceedings initiated for the period of two months from today, in order to facilitate the petitioners to seek appropriate relief from appropriate court or forum. The writ petition is dismissed, subject to the above restrainment ordered. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/