IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 14TH BHADRA 1933 RP.No. 631 of 2011(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3237/2011 Dated 22/02/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- DR.MURALIKRISHNA DEV, S/O.APPU VAIDYAR, CHERUVELIPADIKKAL HOUSE, VALAVAYAL POST, PAPLASSERY, KENICHIRA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN – 673 596. BY ADV. SRI.B.SAINU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. ICICI BANK, IST FLOOR PEEKEEYS DOWN HILL MALAPPURAM - 676 505. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, ICICI BANK, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, ICICI BANK, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERULAM, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. BY ADV.SRI.M.H.HANIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.K.M.SHERIF, SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- R.P.No.631 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.3237 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of September, 2011. O R D E R The writ petition was disposed of permitting regularisation of the account by directing payment of the amounts in default in 4 equal monthly instalments starting from 15.3.2011 onwards. 2. In this review petition, the petitioner is contenting that remittances could not be made since the respondent Bank demanded payment of amounts, which according to the petitioner is not actually due. It is noticed that the petitioner had already filed I.A.No.7394 of 2011 seeking modification of the judgment. But in view of the fact that enlargement of the time stipulated in the judgment was already granted, this Court had dismissed the application seeking modification. Now, in this review petition, the petitioner is seeking further modification to permit him to challenge the proceedings initiated under the 2 R.P.No.631 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.3237 of 2011 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank stiffly opposed the review petition. In fact, the relief was granted only on the basis of a concession made on behalf of the petitioner that he is relinquishing all challenges raised against the impugned proceedings. However, since the petitioner is now raising dispute regarding correctness of the amounts under demand, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to invoke statutory remedy, if any available under law. 4. Therefore, the review petition is disposed of modifying the judgment dated 22.2.2011 by lifting the condition imposed to the extent of restraining the petitioner from raising any challenge against the proceedings. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the statutory authority challenging the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial 3 R.P.No.631 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.3237 of 2011 Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), if it is permissible under law. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/