IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 297 of 2011(J) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.A.NISHAD, AGED 32,S/O.ABOOBACKER, THOPPIYIL HOUSE,POST PADINJARE VEMBALLUR, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM – 682 031. 2. SYNDICATE BANK,KODUNGALLUR BRANCH, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER – 685 503. R1 & R2 BY SRI. R.S. KALKURA, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 297 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 notice issued under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). Going by the scheme of the statute it is evident that the petitioner has got a remedy to file objection/representation against Ext.P1. It is also noticed that the petitioner has got a further remedy to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal invoking section 17(1) of the Act if any further steps as contemplated under section 13(4) is initiated. Under such circumstances it is not proper and justified on the part of this court to interdict with the proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is especially because of the dictum contained in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India vs. Sathyawati Tondon (2010 (8) SCC 110). 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the WP(C).297/2011 2 petitioner is ready and willing to pay off the liability within a reasonable time. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Bank seeking time for payment of arrears in a phased manner within any reasonable time. Needless to say that if any approach is made as above, the respondent shall consider the same and intimate the decision thereof to the petitioner, before proceeding with further coercive steps of recovery, provided the petitioner makes such approach within a period of two weeks from today. It is also made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to invoke statutory remedy against steps if any taken under section 13(4). 3. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed subject to observations as above and reserving liberty of the petitioner to take appropriate steps as provided under the statute. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).297/2011 3