IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14282 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SMT.BEEVI ASURA, W/O.MAHEEN, NMC X/47, ASURA MANZIL, PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, TB JUNCTION, KADAVATTAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE UCO BANK, TRIVANDRUM BRANCH, OVERBRIDGE JUNCTION, G.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER, SRI.I.GOPAL, QUILON BRANCH. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE,S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 14282 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) is challenged in this writ petition. It is noticed that the impugned proceedings is only at the stage of demand notice issued under section 13(2). The scheme of the statute provides effective remedy to file objection/representation on receipt of such notice. Under section 13(3A) the respondent Bank is at an obligation to consider such objection, if any received within the time stipulated, and to give a reply. Petitioner is provided with further remedy as contemplated under section 17(1) in case coercive steps are proceeded with. 2. Under the above circumstances, challenge now raised by the petitioner is highly premature. Therefore the writ petition fails. However the remedy available to the petitioner under sections 13 and 17(1) are hereby reserved. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .14282/2011 2