IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 7557 of 2011(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.MAMMAD, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.UNNIN, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEETTIL, KOTTOPADAM AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY MANAGER. 2. R.RAMAKRISHNAN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AUTHORISED OFFICER, PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PALAKKAD. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.7557/2011-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE J.F.M.C. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7557 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is seeking relief to the extent of retraining the respondents from proceeding with steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). It is admitted that the petitioner had defaulted payment of the loan availed from the 1st respondent bank. Contention of the petitioner is that the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act is not sustainable in view of the limitation prescribed under Section 36 of the said Act. It is evident that the petitioner was issued with demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act, as early as on 27.7.09. According to the petitioner on receipt of the demand notice, he had submitted objection as per Ext.P1. W.P.(C) No.7557 of 2011 2 Further case of the petitioner is that the officials of the respondent bank had acted in a criminal manner in trespassing into the house of the petitioner and threatening the members of the family. However, a criminal complaint instituted by the petitioner in this regard has already been dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad(CMP No. 208/2010) as evident from Ext. P3. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 had vehemently opposed the Writ Petition pointing out that the petitioner is resorting to a total abuse of the process of this court. It is contended that the petitioner could not seek an anticipatory order from this court to restrain the proceedints which may be initiated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, on the basis of an allegation that the debt in question is time barred. It is pointed out that the petitioner has not resorted any further remedy against Ext.P3 order. W.P.(C) No.7557 of 2011 3 3. While considering the facts and circumstances as narrated above, I take note of the fact that no relief can be granted on the basis of an apprehension that the respondents may proceed with steps under the SARFAESI Act in an illegal manner. It is evident from the contention of the petitioner that he had submitted objections to the demand raised under Section 13 (2). If any such objection is received by the respondent within the time stipulated under Section 13 (A) the respondents are at an obligation to consider the same and to give a reply as contemplated under section 13(A). It is further noticed that the statute provides an effective remedy as contemplated under section 17(1), if further steps are proceeded under section 13(4). In such circumstances, it may not be justified on the part of this court to interdict with the matter in any manner. With respect to Ext.P3 order passed by the Magistrate Court, Mannarkad it is left open to the petitioner to W.P.(C) No.7557 of 2011 4 seek appropriate remedy, if any available. 4. Under the above circumstance, the Writ Petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, liberty of the petitioner to resort to appropriate statutory remedy as observed above will stand reserved. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE al W.P.(C) No.7557 of 2011 5