IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 29244 of 2010(E) -------------------------- CMP.3328/2010 of C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. S.SREEKANTAN NAIR,PRAJEED BHAVAN, POTTAYIL MALAYINKIL PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. BRANCH MANAGER,SYNDICATE BANK, HOUSING FINANCE BRANCH,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695004. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL MANAGER, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. PIN 695 001 2. BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK HOUSING FINANCE BRANCH, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 004 STANDING COUNSEL SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 29244 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Steps initiated under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, steps under Section 14 (1) of the Act was initiated. 2. According to the petitioner the amount claimed by the respondents is not true and correct, and on receipt of notices issued under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act the petitioner has approached respondent Bank seeking time for effecting payment of the balance amount, which was not acceded to. Hence the petitioner is seeking to restrain the proceedings now pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, and directions to provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to pay 2 WP(C) No. 29244/2010 off the arrears. 3. It is noticed that the petitioner has not chosen to avail any of the statutory remedies provided under the SARFAESI Act, at the stages when the demand was raised and when steps as contemplated under Section 13 (4) was initiated. However, considering the specific request of the petitioner for providing a reasonable time to pay off the balance amount in a phased manner, indulgence was shown while admitting this Writ Petition through an interim order dated 23.09.2010. An interim stay was granted against dispossession of the petitioner from the property subject to the condition of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.3 lakhs within two weeks from that date. Subsequently I.A. 14241/2010 was filed seeking further time for complying with the condition, and the time was extended till 23.10.2010 through order issued on 12.10.2010. 4. When the matter is taken up for consideration on today, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the 3 WP(C) No. 29244/2010 petitioner has not complied with the condition, but he could remit only a sum of Rs.1 lakh. 5. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that there is no justification in withholding the proceedings now being pursued by the respondents. It is to be taken note of that there is no legally valid challenge raised against such proceedings and the very vague allegations regarding correctness of the demand could not be entertained. It is further noticed that the petitioner has got effective remedies provided under the statute to challenge coercive steps if any taken by the respondents, if he is aggrieved by such proceedings. 6. Therefore the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to invoke remedies as provided under the statute. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc