IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 7182 of 2011(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. CICILY MATHEW, W/O. MATHEW, 56 YEARS, KOTTOOR HOUSE, NEAR BSILICA CHURCH, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM. 2. MATHEW, S/O. K.J. KURIAN, KOTTOOR HOUSE, NEAR BSILICA CHURCH, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA, SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, NODAL REGD. OFFICE, UNION BANK OF INDIA, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.A.S.P. KURUP, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7182 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5, P7 and P9 notices. It is evident that, through Ext.P5 the respondents have intimated the petitioners that one of the loans availed by them has been declared as “Non Performing Asset” and demand for payment of the amounts outstanding is made under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Through Ext.P7, a similar notice was issued with respect to another loan. Ext.P9 is the reply issued by the respondent Bank, after considering the objections raised against the demands, as contemplated under Section 13(3A). 2. Considering the effective statutory remedy provided under Section 17(1) against further actions if any taken under Section 13(4), it is totally not justified on the part of this court to interdict with the proceedings, at the present stage. 3. The petitioners inter alia seek direction against the respondents to permit selling of a portion of the mortgaged property. They are also seeking a direction commanding the W.P.(C).7182/11 -2- Bank to furnish photocopy of title documents in compliance with the request made under Ext.P11. I am afraid; those are not matters coming within the scope of the SARFAESI Act which can be interfered in exercise of power vested on this court under Article 226. Those aspects are purely disputes coming within the purview of rights and obligations arising out of the contract of the loan transactions. The petitioners have to pursue appropriate remedy before the concerned authorities. 4. Under such circumstances, the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, liberty of the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedy before the respondents as well as their rights to invoke statutory remedy against further steps under the SARFAESI Act, if any available, will stand reserved. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb