IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 6507 of 2011(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SAFIYA M.K., W/O. LATE HAMEED HAJI, KOLLARANDI HOUSE, NADAL P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 2. THE MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., CHINGAVANAM BRANCH, KOTTAYAM - 686 012. 3. FIVE STAR AGRO FOOD (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ABDUL AZEEZ, INDUSTRIAL PLOT, POOVANTHURUTHU P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 012. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6507 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is seeking to quash Ext.P1, and inter alia seeking direction not to proceed against the petitioner's property without complying with the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). 2. It is noticed that Ext.P1 is only a demand notice issued by respondents 1 and 2, requesting the petitioner to make payment of the amounts in default within 10 days, otherwise it is informed that the respondents will be compelled to initiate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submit that apart from Ext.P1 notice, no proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated against the 2 W.P.(C).No.6507 of 2011 petitioner. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent who is the principal borrower had approached this Court on an earlier occasion when proceedings was initiated for recovery of the amounts from the property of the 3rd respondent, and this Court directed the 3rd respondent to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is stated that the 3rd respondent had filed a securitisation application before the DRT, but the same was subsequently disposed as infructuous. 4. However, it is highly premature for this Court to consider the grievance voiced by the petitioner since no steps under the SARFAESI Act was initiated against the petitioner. The demand notice now issued is a matter coming purely within the realm of contractual obligations, which could not be challenged in a proceedings under Article 226. 5. However, the rights if any available to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy, in case proceedings 3 W.P.(C).No.6507 of 2011 under the SARFAESI Act is initiated, is reserved. 6. Hence the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy against proceedings if any initiated under the SARFAESI Act. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/