IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 14TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9334 of 2011(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PRAKASAN, S/O.RARUKUTTY, VAZHORAMALAYIL HOUSE, PANANGAD POST, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN 673612. 2. JAYASREE, W/O PRAKASAN,-DO- -DO- . BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SMT.M.SINDHU THANKAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-36, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. AIG HOME FINANCE INDIA LTD., 1ST FLOOR, AARPEES ARCADE,YOUNGMENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION ROAD, (Y.M.C.A.ROAD), CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 9334/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 8.3.11. P2 COPY OF THE PETITION P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 21.3.11. // True Copy // P.S. To Judge S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 9334 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 5th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge proceedings under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 initiated by the 2nd respondent for recovery of amounts due from the petitioners to the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioners, the petitioners have filed an application under Section 17 of the Act insofar as the 2nd respondent had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act. But the Tribunal refused to accept the same on the ground that unless possession is taken by the 2nd respondent either notionally or physically, no application under Section 17 can be entertained. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the proceedings for taking possession of the property by the 2nd under Section 13(4) of the Act. 2. This Court passed an interim order on 24.3.2011 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 75,000/- as a condition for stay of dispossession. Admittedly, the petitioner has not paid the said amount. 3. I have heard both parties. 4. I have already held in Sami v. Bank of India, 2011 (3) KLT 554 that the very act of the financial institution in approaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 is a measure under Section 13(4) of the Act and therefore an application under Section 17 would lie against the action of the W.P(C) No. 9334 of 2011 -: 2 :- financial institution in approaching the Magistrate under Section 14. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: If the petitioners re-present the application under Section 17 originally filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which was refused to be accepted, within two weeks, the same shall be taken on file as if the same was filed on the original date of presentation and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/