IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8354 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYANTHI, W/O.K.SASIKUMARAN, AGED 36 YEARS, VALPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUDUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., PKM COMPLEX, IST FLOOR, MISSION SCHOOL JN., PALAKKAD-678 014, REP.BY ITS MANAGER. 2. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., HDFC HOUSE, NO.29, KAMARAJ ROAD (NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE), COIMBATORE-641 018, REP.BY ITS MANAGER. 3. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., RAMON HOUSE, 169 BACK BAY RECLAMATION, MUMBAI-400 020, REP.BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, HDFC HOUSE, NO.29, KAMARAJ ROAD, COIMBATORE-641 018. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARALI VILLAGE, PARALI, PALAKKAD-678 108. BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3 SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL FOR R1-R3 SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 8354 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Wife of the borrower, who availed a housing loan from respondents 1 to 3, is challenging the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Complaint of the petitioner is that, coercive steps were being pursued against the immovable property, which is the secured asset, without issuing any notice as required under the provisions of the Act. It is admitted that the petitioner's husband is working abroad and that the petitioner is also not residing in the building situated in the secured asset. 2. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that, consequent to default committed in repayment of the loan availed, the respondent bank had issued notice under section 13(2) on 9.3.2010. Since the same was not received by the borrower, publication of such 2 W.P.(C).No. 8354 of 2011 notice was effected on 8.5.2010. Subsequently, the bank had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court invoking section 14(1), and pursuant to an order issued by that Court, the property was taken over possession on 7.10.2010. The above fact was published on 12.10.2010. Thereafter, steps for sale was taken and a sale proclamation was published on 23.10.2010. It is stated that the sale was effected on 26.2.2010 and on remittance of the bid amount, sale certificate was also issued to the purchaser. It is further mentioned that possession of the property was already delivered to the auction purchaser. 3. Under the above circumstances, it is not proper and justified on the part of this Court to interfere with the proceedings in any manner. However, it is left open to the petitioner to challenge the sale, if permissible under law, by approaching appropriate statutory authority. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to challenge the sale proceedings before the statutory 3 W.P.(C).No. 8354 of 2011 authority. It is also left open to the petitioner to approach the bank as well as the auction purchaser for settlement of the issue. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/