IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3003 of 2009(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GOPINATHAN.M.P, S/O.KUNHIRAMA KURUP, MANCHIYIL VAYALIL HOUSE, PALERI, OTTAKANDAN ROAD, POST CHANGAROTH, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.ASHOKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PERAMBRA BRANCH, POST PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DIST. 2. MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PERAMBRA BRANCH, POST PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.3003 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a loan. He has not even disclosed in the writ petition as to what is the nature and purpose of the loan. He states that when Ext.P1 notice was issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act by publication, he has made Ext.P2 representation, calling for a statement of accounts etc. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the bank that prior to Ext.P1, notice under Section 13(2) was issued by registered post, however, that it was not received by the petitioner and hence, the bank was compelled to publish such notice. Whatever that be, going by the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. & Others v. Union of India & Others {2004 (4) SCC 311}, the petitioner does not have any right to claim any adjudication on his objections to Ext.P1. All that he is entitled to is that the bank would consider his objections. However, from Ext.P2, the only objection raised is regarding accounting. As of now, the bank has taken further measure WPC.3003/09 Page numbers under Section 13(4) by issuing Ext.P3 notice on 15.12.2008. This writ petition is filed on 28.1.2009. The petitioner has not moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Even, the time for such action has now run out. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is directed to appear before the second respondent and remit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within three weeks from now and make a written request for a copy of the statement of accounts. If the petitioner has any doubt about the account, he will clarify that with the second respondent and remit the remaining amounts in three equal monthly instalments, payable on or before the 28th of March, April and May, 2009. However, if there is default in remitting any of the amounts as aforesaid, the benefit of this judgment will stand recalled automatically and distress action will follow. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.