IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 131 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.34300/2007 Dated 23/11/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- WILSON, S/O. VAREED, MALAKKARAN HOUSE, PROP. MALAKKARAN STORES, MARKET ROAD, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, TUDA BUILDING, P.B.NO.123, S.T.NAGAR, SAKTHAN ARCADE, THRISSUR. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, CHALAKUDY BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER. BY SC ADV. SRI. A.S.P. KURUP. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No. 131 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, Petitioner had borrowed certain amounts from the first respondent, Union Bank of India. Since he defaulted in paying the amount due to the Bank, the Bank has initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act ('the Act' for short) by issuing a notice under Section 13 of the Act inter alia calling upon the petitioner to discharge a sum of Rs.3,18,427/-. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner was before this court in W.P.(C) No.34300 of 2007. 2. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by granting instalment facilities to the petitioner to pay off the amount due to the Bank, since the petitioner himself had offered to the officers of the Bank that he would settle the entire dues on or before 21.11.2007. 3. In our opinion, if for any reason a defaulter is aggrieved by the notice issued under Section 13 of the Act, necessarily he has to question the same before the appropriate forum provided under the Act itself. Without doing so, the petitioner has rushed to this court by filing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, ought to have rejected the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternate effective and efficacious remedy under the Act. Further the Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India ((2004) 4 SCC 311) has stated that if for any reason a person is aggrieved by the action of the financial institution in invoking the provisions of the Act, they W.A.131/2008. 2 can question the said action before the appropriate forum provided under the Act itself. 4. Taking into consideration the financial difficulties pleaded by the petitioner, the court has thought it fit to grant some instalment facilities to the petitioner to settle the entire dues as agreed upon by the petitioner before the authorities of the Bank. The said discretionary order passed by the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of this writ appeal. 5. At the time of hearing of this writ appeal for admission, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would again request us to grant some more time to the petitioner to discharge the entire loan liability towards the financial institution. Since the learned Single Judge has granted sufficient instalment facilities to the petitioner, it may not be appropriate for us to grant some more time to the petitioner to discharge the entire loan liability to the financial institution. In that view of the matter, we reject the writ appeal. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.