IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WA.No. 1084 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8009/2007 Dated 02/04/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- M/S.THANIKKUDAM BAGAVATI MILLS LTD., THANIKUDAM,KURICHIKKARA P.O.,THIRSSUR-680 028. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAING DIRECTOR, S.NAGAMANICKKAM. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SMT.K.I.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): 1 ---------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR REPREENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER. 2. THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, ZONAL OFFICE, THIRSSUR REP. BY ITS DEPUTY ZONAL MANAGER & AUTHORISED OFFICER. R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(SC) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.9.2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.331/2007 IN W.A. NO.1084 OF 2007. 18.9.2009. SD/- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A. No.1084 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated, the 18th day of September , 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The borrower company which has committed chronic default approached this Court by filing writ petition challenging the notice issued under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The learned Single Judge held that though both the respondents are scheduled banks, the government has no control over the respondents and therefore, no writ will lie against the respondent banks. In the first place, we do not find anything wrong in the judgment because, the respondents are only commercial banks. However, probably, this Court could interfere if the statutory action contemplated is illegal or untenable. WA 1084/07 -:2:- The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the Securitisation Act and for balance disputes, proceedings can be initiated before the DRT. The appellant/petitioner does not deny borrowals and default which happened long back. In fact, while admitting the writ appeal, this court on 13.4.2007 suggested the appellant to submit the proposal before the banks for settlement. We do not find any justification to retain the the writ appeal before this Court. If there is any grievance for the appellant, he can approach the DRT. The Writ Appeal is dismissed because there is no merit in it. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- WA 1084/07 -:3:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..