IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31043 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- REGIMON. V.R. VELIYAMKUNNIL HOUSE, PURAPPUZHA P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR MANAGER,THODUPUZHA BRANCH, THODUPUZHA P.O., PIN-685 584. 2. V.S. RANKNATHAN, AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK SECURITY AND ENFORCEMENT CELL, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 584. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC. SRI.P. GOPINATHA MENON. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.31043 of 2010-E ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner had availed different loans from the respondent Bank, such as overdraft facility, term loan for starting an industry, housing loan, working capital loan and car loan etc. Consequent to default committed in repayment, the respondent had classified all the accounts as 'NPA' and initiated steps against the immovable property, which is the secured asset with respect to the loan transactions. The respondent had issued various demand notices and ultimately Ext.P2 notice as contemplated under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued. 2. According to the petitioner the industrial unit is manufacturing various agricultural implements and the W.P(C) No.31043 of 2010-E 2 petitioner is supplying those items to various dealers in different states. It is mentioned that huge amounts are remaining with such dealers pending payment with respect to credit facility granted. If coercive steps are pursued and the industrial unit is taken over possession, that will cause severe prejudice to the petitioner, is the contention. 3. In a statement filed on behalf of respondents, it is mentioned that, four distinct loans availed by the petitioner are in chronic default and they were classified as 'NPA'. The proceedings was initiated since the petitioner had not taken any effective steps to clear the arrears under the different loan accounts, inspite of repeated demands made. In a reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, correctness of the amounts under demand is disputed on the premise that various payments made by the petitioner has not been given proper credit and that the computation of interest is not done in a proper manner. 4. I am afraid, it may not be proper for this Court to interfere with the matter to resolve the dispute now raised. W.P(C) No.31043 of 2010-E 3 Considering the effective alternative remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act, it is not proper for this Court to venture such adjudication, especially in view of the fact that the respondents have issued only a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to approach the respondent Bank seeking rectification of mistakes if any occurred in the demand raised, as well as the rights to invoke statutory remedy available under Section 17(1) against further proceedings if any pursued under the SARFAESI Act. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab