IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34756 of 2010(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PATHIRAPPALLY BRANCH. BY ADVS. SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SRI.ARUN THOMAS, SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALLEPPEY – 688 009. 2. KUNJUMON.V.M, S/O.SILVESTER MICHEAL, VELIYIL HOUSE, KATOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA – 688 009. 3. MARIAM, W/O.KUNJUMON, VELIYIL HOUSE, KATOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA – 688 009. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34756 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner bank is seeking relief to quash Ext.P5 complaint filed by respondents 2 and 3 before the 1st respondent Forum and Ext.P4 interim order issued by that Forum. It is evident from Ext.P5 that the respondents 2 and 3 had approached the 1st respondent Forum seeking a declaration that they are not liable to make payment of amounts due under the loan transaction and also seeking to restrain the petitioner Bank from initiating proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). As per Ext.P4 order issued by the 1st respondent Forum, the petitioner Bank was restrained from proceeding with further steps against the secured assets. 2. It is also pointed out that respondents 2 and 3 had approached this court on an earlier occasion by filing WP(C). 4084/2010 challenging the very same proceedings and this court had shown indulgence in permitting the petitioner to make payment of the amounts due in a phased manner. It is further pointed out that the 3rd respondent herein, who is the wife of the 2nd respondent, was actually misrepresented in the W.P.(C).34756/10-T -2- earlier writ petition as a person aged 60 years and as if she is the mother of the 2nd respondent. However, it is brought out that respondents 2 and 3 had approached the 1st respondent Forum without making any payment as per the relief granted by this court. 3. As per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act there is an express bar to the effect that, no civil court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter on which the Debts Recovery Tribunal or appellate tribunal is empowered under the said Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the said Act. Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act stipulates that the provisions contained therein shall have overriding effect, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. 4. Under the above circumstances it is evident that the proceedings initiated before the 1st respondent Forum as well as the interim order issued by that Forum is totally without jurisdiction and is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. In spite of notice served from this court the respondents 2 and 3 had not entered appearance nor have chosen to contest the matter. W.P.(C).34756/10-T -3- 6. Under the above circumstances I am inclined to allow this writ petition. Accordingly the proceedings initiated before the 1st respondent Forum on the basis of Ext.P5 complaint as well as the interim order issued by that Forum as per Ext.P4 are hereby quashed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb