IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 11267 of 2011(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- UNION BANK OF INDIA, MAVELIKKARA BRANCH, MAVELIKKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, S.C, U.B.I. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MR.GEORGE PAUL, ALUMOOTTIL HOUSE, PAYIPPADU P.O., HARIPAD - 690 566, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALLEPPEY, PIN – 688 001. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.11267 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner Bank is seeking to quash Ext.P2 interim order issued by the 2nd respondent Forum and the proceedings pending before the said Forum as C.C.16/2011. In spite of service of notice from this court the 1st respondent has not chosen to contest the matter by entering appearance. 2. The question raised for consideration is as to whether any proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) can be interdicted through any order of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. The issue has already been considered by this court in the decision in H.D.F.C. Bank Limited Vs. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (2011(2) KLT 132). This court while deciding the issue had taken note of the settled legal position as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Vs. Union of India (2004(2) KLT 273 (SC) and observed that in view of the express bar provided under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, the civil courts and other authorities are restrained from granting injunction with respect to any action taken under the SARFAESI W.P.(C).11267/11 -2- proceedings. Further it is noticed that under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act it is made clear that the provisions of the said Act will be having an overriding effect with respect to any other law for the time being in force, notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained therein. 3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, considering the settled legal position, I am of the view that Ext.P2 order issued by the 2nd respondent Forum restraining the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act is not sustainable in law. 4. Therefore the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P2 order is hereby quashed. 5. It is made clear that none of the steps taken under the SARFAESI Act is amenable to challenge in a complaint filed under the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, in view of the observations contained above. Therefore the 2nd respondent is directed to take a decision regarding maintainability of the complaint, which is now pending before that Forum as C.C.16/2011, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb