IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 12261 of 2008(I) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- 1. C. MAHIN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O.C.H. AHMED HAJI, BERKA HOUSE, P.O. CHENGALA, CHERKALA, KASARGODE TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA. 2. C.A. AZEEZ, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. C.G.A. MOHAMMAD, CHERKALA HOUSE, P.O.CHEMNAD, KASARGODE TALUK, KASARGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SHRI.B.Y.ACHAR SRI.DENU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: --------------------- THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ANDRA BANK, ZONAL OFFICE NO.4/1, ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE -560 027. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 12261 of 2008(I) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 – POSSESSIOIN NOTICE DATED 26.10.2006. EXT.P2 – TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2006. EXT.P3 – TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPTS EVIDENCING PAYMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) – TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONERS EXT.R1(b) – TRUE COPY OF THE SHADOW ACCOUNT STATEMENT. EXT.R1(c) – TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFACE ACT WITH SIGNATURE OF THE 1ST PEITIONER DATED 10.3.2006. EXT.R1(d) – TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFACE ACT WITH SIGNATURE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 10.3.2006. EXT.R1(e) – A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE BANK FROM THE TAHSILDAR KASARAGODE DATED 7.5.2008. EXT..R1(f) – A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE BANK FROM THE TAHSILDAR KASARAGODE DATED 7.5.2008. EXT.R1(g) – TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED FROM BY THE BRANCH MANAGER TO THE PETITIONER ON REJECTING THE OTS DATED 20.6.2008. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 12261 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. On 17-7-2008, I passed the following interim order in I.A.No. 9196/2008: “Counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner has paid Rs. 4.5 lakhs. He is willing to pay the balance amount in instalments. However, for taking a decision, notice has not been served on the respondent. The petitioner submits that the matter is posted to tomorrow for taking possession. In the above circumstances, further proceedings under the Securitisation Act shall be kept in abeyance for a month on the petitioner paying a further amount of Rs. 3 lakhs within one month.” It is admitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the amount has not been paid. It is settled law that proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 have to be challenged in an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as provided in Section 17 of the Act. The Supreme Court has held that this Court should not ordinarily entertain challenge against proceedings under the Act and the parties should be left to seek their remedies in appeal before the DRT. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the DRT. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ // True copy // PS to Judge