IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WA.No. 2260 of 2008 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28574/2008 Dated 29/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:- ------------------------------------- T.BALAKRISHNAN, THACHAROTH HOUSE, MEMHANNIAN, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, PUSHPA JUNCTION, KOZHIKOIDE DISTRICT. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PERAMBRA BRANCH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, PUSHPA JUNCTION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2260 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The appellant herein had availed a housing loan from the respondent Bank. Since he has committed default in repaying the loan amount, the respondents have initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“ SARFAESI Act” for short). Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in initiating the proceedings under the aforesaid Act, the petitioner was before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.28574/2008. 2. Initially, the learned Judge has granted the interim prayer. The appellant, for the reasons best known to him, had not complied with the interim orders so passed. Therefore, the learned Judge has disposed of the writ petition. 3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner in the writ petition has presented this writ appeal. 4. Admittedly, what is called in question by the petitioner before this Court is the proceedings initiated by the respondents in W.A.No.2260/2008 -2- exercise of their powers under Section 13(2) and 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. If, for any reason, the petitioner is aggrieved by those proceedings, he ought to have questioned it before the appropriate forum as provided under the Act. In our view, the learned Single Judge ought not to have even entertained the writ petition and ought not to have granted the interim prayer. 5. In view of the above, we reject this writ appeal without going into the other details of the case. It is for the petitioner to choose his remedy, either under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act or any other law which is in force. 6. In view of the order passed in the writ appeal, no further order need be passed in I.A.No.979/2008 and therefore, it is closed. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS