IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31661 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. A.K.ANI, D/O.SADANANDAN, PROPRIETOR, KICHU MOTORS, T.C.49/962, SREEMOOLAM NAGAR, CHIRAMUTH, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAJILA BEEVI, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.NAZIM, RESIDING AT NAZIM MANZIL, T.C.52/180, KARAKAMANDAPAM, NEMAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, LHO ANNEXE (WING-I), 1ST FLOOR, CHILD WELFARE COMPLEX, L.M.S.COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, LHO ANNEXE (WING-1), 1ST FLOOR, CHILD WELFARE COMPLEX L.M.S. COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. S.K.ANIL KUMAR, T.C.49/962, SREEMOOLANAGARAM, CHIRAMUKKU, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV.SRI.R.S. KALKURA , SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31661 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 notice issued under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying a loan availed from the respondent Bank, proceedings were initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. It is contended that on receipt of Ext.P3 notice the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent with a representation as per Ext.P4, seeking four months time for payment of the entire arrears by sale of certain properties belonging to the petitioners. Grievance of the petitioners is that without considering such request the respondents are now taking steps to proceed further against the secured assets. 2. Going by the provisions contained in the statute, it is evident that the petitioners are at liberty to file objections/representations against any demand raised under W.P.(C).31661/10- -2- Section 13(2), within a period of 60 days. Going by Ext.P4 the limited request of the petitioner is for granting time for payment of the entire arrears. Eventhough it is noticed that such representation was not filed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice under Section 13(2), I am of the opinion that it is only just and proper on the part of the respondents to consider such request. It is pertinent to note that the respondents are at an obligation to consider objections/representations if any submitted against notice under Section 13(2) and to take a decision thereof, as required under Section 13(3A) of the Act. 3. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider Ext.P4 and to take a decision thereof and to intimate the same to the petitioner, at the earliest possible. 4. Needless to say that further steps under the SARFAESI Act shall not be proceeded unless such decision is intimated to the petitioner. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb