IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9056 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ L.LEKHA SURESH,W/O.B.SURESH,AGED 37, 'GOKULAM',THIRUMALA.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.N.RATHEESH SMT.SUMA RATHEESH RESPONDENT -------------------- INDIAN BANK, THYCAUD BRANCH,NIRMALA BUILDING,METTUKADA JUNCTION,THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.S. EASWARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9056 of 2011(F) ------------------------------- APPENDIX ----------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF SECTION 13(2) NOTICE DT. 10.1.2011 ISSUED UNDER SERFAESI ACT. EXT.P2. COPY F THE LETTER DT. 9. 3.2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS -------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.9056 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Going by the scheme of the statue, it is evident that the petitioner has got remedy to object the demand raised under Section 13(2). It is further evident that as per Section 13 (3A) the respondent will be at an obligation to consider objections if any raised or representation if any filed against the demand under Section 13(2). In the case at hand, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 before the authorised officer of the respondents Bank, requesting to permit payment of the defaulted amounts and thereby to regularise the account. Since it is apprehended that further coercive steps will be persued, without considering Ext.P2, this writ petition is filed seeking interference of this court. 2. Heard, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent W.P.(C). NO.9056 OF 2011 2 Bank. 3. It is conceded that no further steps pursuant to Ext.P1 has been taken, till date. Hence, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served, if a direction is issued to the respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P2 for permitting payment of the defaulted amounts and to regularise the account. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider Ext.P2 and to take appropriate decision thereon, and to intimate such decision to the petitioner. Needless to say that further steps under the SARFAESI Act can be proceeded only after complying with the above direction. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE mns