IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38535 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.SELVAN, S/O.ARUMUGHAN, KUNDANPADAM HOUSE, ENNAPADAM, ELAPPULLI P.O.,PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- INDIAN BANK., PALAKKAD BRANCH, REPRESETNED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER - 678 001. BY SRI.S.ESWARAN - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.38535 of 2010-N ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The challenge is against Ext.P3 notice issued under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, intimating steps taken as contemplated under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). It is noticed that the petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion when notice under Section 13(2) was issued. Against the judgment in W.P(C) No.1961 of 2007 dt.24.1.2007, the petitioner had filed writ appeal before the Division Bench. Ext.P1 is the judgment in W.A No.1581 of 2007. It is revealed that the petitioner had filed an affidavit before this Court undertaking that the amounts due will be paid in five equal monthly instalments and on the basis of such undertaking, relief was granted permitting the petitioner to make payment of the amounts in five equal monthly instalments, without committing any default. It was specifically mentioned that the respondent Bank will be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings, in W.P(C) No.38535 of 2010-N 2 case of any default committed. 2. In view of the above narrated facts and circumstances, and in view of the effective alternative remedy availed to the petitioner against Ext.P3 notice, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. This is especially because of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of interdicting with the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held in United Bank of India V Sathyawati Tondon & others (2010(8) SCC 110). 3. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedies as provided under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab