IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18715 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABEEDA BEEVI, W/O.NIZAMUDEEN, PROPRIETOR, ABI FLOUR MILL, PULIYATHU MUKKU, KILIKKOLLUR (PO), KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT 'SABITHA MANZIL', NETAJI NAGAR, PULIYATHU MUKKU, KILIKKOLLUR (PO), KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, CANARA BANK, CHINNAKKADA BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 001. 2. THE CANARA BANK, CHINNAKKADA BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 001. REP.ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. MUHAMMED SHAFEEQ, ALICE MANZIL, K.B.NAGAR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN-691 001. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 4. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOLLAM MAIN BRANCH, BISHOP NEROME NAGAR, KOLLAM, REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, (R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.19040/2011 ON 13.12.2011) ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD FOR R3 SRI.SAJU J PANICKER FOR R3 SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN FOR R1,2 SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.GOPINATH MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 18715/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.8.12.09. P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.19.3.2010 BY R1. P3. COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DTD.17.12.2010. P4. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.21.2.11. P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 6018/2011 OF THIS COURT. P6. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.6.4.11. P7. COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT BY THE TRIBUNAL DTD.19.5.11. P8. COPY OF THE NOTICES DTD.25.5.11. P9. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.9.5.11. P10. COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND POSTAL RECEIPT DTD.15.6.11. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R3A. COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DTD.26.5.11. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 18715 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 13th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, initiated by respondents 1 and 2 for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner. The property belonging to the petitioner has been sold to the 3rd respondent in the proceedings. Originally, the petitioner expressed a desire to have the matter settled through a mediation. Although I referred the matter for mediation, the mediator reported that mediation has failed. Even before that, on 10.10.2011, I passed the following order: “The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire amounts due to respondents 1 and 2 would be paid within one month. Post after one month. In the meantime, further proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.” The petitioner now submits that the petitioner has no money and, therefore, she is not in a position to pay off the loan amounts. In the above circumstances, I do not think that there is any point in continuing the writ petition. Even otherwise, it is settled law that proceedings under the Act have to the challenged in an application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge - : 2 :-