IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6799 of 2011() ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. S.BALASUBRAMANIAN, S/O.SUBRAMANYA IYER, 6/17 LAKSHMY BHAVAN, MAIN ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR. 2. MRS.M.S.PRASANNA, W/O.S.BALASUBRAMANIAN, 6/17 LAKSHMY BHAVAN, MAIN ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.P.R.RAJA SRI.R.AZAD BABU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. BRANCH MANAGER, PUNJAB & SIND BANK, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, PUNJAB & SIND BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI MATHEW SRI.DENU JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.6799 of 2011-Y ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are challenging steps initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and consequent notice issued under Ext.P4 intimating steps taken as contemplated under Section 13(4). The petitioners inter alia seeks a declaration to the effect that no amount is outstanding for payment to the respondents in view of Ext.P2, copy of a statement of accounts. 2. It is noticed that when coercive steps under the SARFAESI Act was initiated, the petitioners had approached this Court on an earlier occasion. Ext.P5 is the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.266/2010. It is evident that a modification of the relief granted in the writ petition was allowed on the basis of submissions made by the petitioners that, they will not be in a position to comply with the conditions stipulated to the extent of monthly W.P(C) No.6799 of 2011-Y 2 payment of a sum of around Rs.2 lakhs. Indulgence was shown by this Court in permitting the petitioners to pay off the entire liability within a period of four months from the date of the judgment (17.2.2010). 3. In view of the relief already granted by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment, the present writ petition is not maintainable. According to the petitioners the amount due has already been paid in terms of the directions contained in Ext.P5 judgment. But the respondents disputed the statement, and according to them further amounts to the tune of more than Rs.11 lakhs is due. The petitioners relies on Ext.P2 statement to contend that no such amount is due and the amount in question was written off after payment of the entire amount. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that Ext.P2 is not true and correct. But it is only issued for the purpose of compliance of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The amount due after classification of the account as NPA will not be reflected in Ext.P2 and in fact the petitioners were issued with another W.P(C) No.6799 of 2011-Y 3 statement showing the balance, is the contention. 4. However, considering the nature of dispute now raised, I am of the view that this Court could not enter upon any adjudication regarding correctness of the amounts due. Further it is noticed that the petitioners have got effective remedy as provided under the SARFAESI Act to agitate such issues. Therefore, I am of the view that this writ petition could not be entertained. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioners will be at liberty to invoke statutory remedy, if any available, to agitate the issues. 6. All contentions raised in this writ petition are left open for agitation. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab