IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2851 of 2009(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. K.C.CHACKO, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 62 YRS, KOORKAKALAYIL, ERUMELY.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, OLICKAL HOUSE, PAMPAVALLEY, VATTAPARA.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER, ADVANCES), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGION II, ZONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ERUMELI BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR. K.S. DILEEP, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.2851 of 2009-M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The first petitioner is a co-obligant of a loan availed by his son for educational purposes. The second petitioner had mortgaged his property to support that loan. The loan was availed in 2004 July for an amount of Rs.10 lakhs plus interest. First petitioner's son utilized that money for studies in UK and is now stated to be employed. There is delay in repayment and hence, the impugned notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act has been issued. In terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals and others v. Union of India and others [(2004) 4 SCC 311], the petitioners have no right to challenge the notice under Section 13(2). The petitioners appear to be desirous to pay off the outstandings and avert the distress action by WP(C)2851/2009 -: 2 :- further steps under Section 13(4). They also offer that they would be prepared to remit even at the rate of Rs.50,000/- as against the agreed amount of Rs.17,000/- per month. These are all matters which can be worked out between the bank and the petitioners and judicial interference is not called for. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to seek redressal from the bank. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/100209