IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 15913 of 2011(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, C/O.MINAR INTERNATIONAL LTD., 308, NAVYUG INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, 167, T.J.ROAD, SEWREE, MUMBAI-400 015. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CORPORATION BANK, FORT MUMBAI BRANCH, GROUND FLOOR, VEENA CHAMBERS, DALAL STREET, FORT, MUMBAI-400 023, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNDER SARFAESI ACT, CORPORATION BANK, FORT MUMBAI BRANCH, MUMBAI-400 023. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAJENDRAN, SRI.K.S.FRIJO, SRI.RAMU RAJENDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.15913/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE GIFT DEED. P2:- COPY OF THE LEASE DEED. P3:- COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DTD. 8.10.09 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT BANK. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN SA. 17/2009 DTD. 14.12.2010 PASSED BY THE DRTO, MUMBAI. P5:- COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 13(4) THE/SARFAESI ACT. P6:- COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 13(4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 15913 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 8th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner's contention is that the property proceeded against belongs to the petitioner and the petitioner has not given any personal guarantee for the loan in question. This is opposed by the counsel for the 1st respondent-bank who contends that personal guarantees have also been furnished by the petitioner. I am not inclined to go into these disputed questions of fact insofar as the petitioner's remedy in such circumstances lies in filing an application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/