IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 5169 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ANILKUMAR, TC 52/146 (1) SAPARYAI, SOUHRIDA NAGAR, PUZHAYA KARAKKAMANDAPAM, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 020. 2. M. PREMKUMAR, KEEZHEVALUVILAKAM, VELLAYANI, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -20. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SYNDICATE BANK, REP. BY AUTHORISED OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, KILLIPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC SRI R S KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 5169 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT First petitioner availed an overdraft facility. That became sticky, according to the bank. On such premise, the bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act. The impugned action under Section 13(4) is taken only in February 2009 and the petitioners are well within time to challenge it before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act. Without going into merits and without prejudice to that course, this writ petition needs only to be dismissed. But learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decision of this court in Betty V. Union Bank of India(2007(4) KLT SN 53), pointed out that this court is not powerless to consider the question of erroneous classification of a transaction as a Non- performing Asset and in such event, it is a jurisdictional issue. A classification in violation of the norms of Reserve Bank of India which generates a cause of action under Section 13(2) could be a jurisdictional issue, but the further question would be as to whether the decision on that jurisdictional issue would call for an adjudication on mixed questions of law and fact and entering on an adjudication on the accounts. On such a premise, I do not deem it appropriate to extend the principle contained in the cited precedent and entertain WP(C) 5169/2009 2 this writ petition. The plea of the petitioners is essentially built on payments which they state as having been made. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed in limine, without prejudice to the petitioners' right to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/19/2