IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3311 of 2011(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MAMMOOTY KAMBA, WHITE ROSE, NEAR PAYYANAKKAL KAV, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJESH, SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 012. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KALLAI ROAD BRANCH, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 001, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUATION CENTRE, 2ND FLOOR, THAVOT PLACE, KANNUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 001, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SC., SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.3311 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 & P5 notices which are issued under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying a loan availed from the respondent Bank, the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against. On getting Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 objections. Ext.P5 is the reply issued by the 3rd respondent considering such objections. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P5 is not sustainable since such reply was not issued by the authorised officer, strictly within the time stipulated under Section 13(3A). 3. I am of the opinion that it is not justified on the part of this court to entertain the above dispute, in view of the effective alternative remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the Act. In this regard I take note of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated practice of High Courts interdicting with steps taken under the SARFAESI Act in writ petitions filed W.P.(C).3311/11 -2- bypassing the statutory remedies, in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others (2010 (8) SCC 110). 4. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank contended that the stipulation of time under Section 13(3A) is only directory and even if the reply is not issued within the time stipulated, the same will not vitiate the proceedings as held by a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujrat in the decision in Kirandevi Bansal Vs. D.G.M. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Ahmedabad (AIR 2009 Gujarat 100). 5. On the factual matrix of the case it is pointed out that the petitioner had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A.No.548/09 (Ext.P1) when steps under Section 13(4) was taken on an earlier occasion. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank points out that the petitioner had failed in complying with the condition stipulated in the interim order passed in S.A.548/09, which was issued on the basis of an offer made by the petitioner to pay off the liability. However, as observed above, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition in view of the alternative remedy. 6. When the decision of this court was made known, learned counsel for petitioner appealed that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy and that he is W.P.(C).3311/11 -3- relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings impugned. On that basis a limited prayer is made to permit the petitioner to pay off the entire liability in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 7. Eventhough interference on merits is not proper, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the liability within a reasonable time in instalments, in view of the relinquishment made. 8. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 28.2.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 9. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb