IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3040 of 2009(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.RAJAN, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.RAMAN, EDAYIMADATHIL HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR.P.O., MEPAYUR, KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HDFC LTD. REP. BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER HDFC HOUSE, P.B.NO. 1667, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION M.G.ROAD, COCHIN 682 015. 2. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI 400 001. 3. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. R1 BY ADV.SRI. K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN, C.G.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.3040 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5nd day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner availed a housing loan and defaulted in repayment. This has led to notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. That notice has also been published in the newspapers as Ext.P1, on 24.12.2008. No measure has been taken under Section 13(4). Therefore, going by the decision of the Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. & Others v. Union of India & Others {2004 (4) SCC 311} , the petitioner is yet to have an accrued legal right to challenge distress action. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that if a measure under Section 13(4) is also published, he will be mulcted with further action. The fact remains that since the loan was recalled in 2006, no repayment was made to the satisfaction of the lender. The petitioner says that he had remitted an amount of Rs.45,000/-. At this stage, all that the petitioner can aspire is to move the lender for relief. That is not a matter on which this Court can issue any direction. WPC.3040/09 Page numbers 2. It is also pleaded in this writ petition that the norms prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India as per the Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning pertaining to Advances are arbitrary. That issue can be well preferred for consideration, if the petitioner loses in the matter that he may file before the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal against any measure that may be taken by the first respondent, the lender. Therefore, preserving such rights to challenge the RBI norms in accordance with law and preserving the right to all reliefs in accordance with law as regards any measure if and when taken, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving the petitioner with liberty to move the first respondent for any relief regarding regularisation or slashing of total outstandings. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.10/2.