IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9106 of 2011(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- D.RAJESH KUMAR, S/O.LATE DINESAN UNNI, ANIL SADANAM, MARUTHUMOODU, MANNOORKONAM, THOLIKODE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 541. BY ADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL, SRI.P.R.PRATEESH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, PARANDODE BRANCH, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 542. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, PARANDODE BRANCH, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 542. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH, SRI.S.RAMU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 9106 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T challenge in this writ petition is against the steps initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act(Sarfaesi Act). It is noticed that the petitioner was issued only with a demand notice as contemplated under Section 13(2) . Going by the scheme of the statue the petitioner has get a right to object such demand and if any such objection is filed, the respondent bank will be an obligation to consider the same and to give reply . According to the petitioner on receipt of Ext.P3 notice the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 seeking permission for payment of the amount in instalments. Apprehending coercive steps without considering Ext.P4, the writ petition is filed 2.Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent bank, on the basis of instructions, submitted W.P.(C)No. 9106 OF 2011 2 that Ext.P4 reply was considered by the respondents and a letter dated 23-3-11 has already been issued to the petitioner requiring him to attend the Adalath conducted under the auspicious of the bank and also requiring the petitioner to submit proposal for one time settlement . However learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such reply has been received. 3.Considering the facts and circumstances and also the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in united Bank of India Vs.Sathyawati Tondon (2010 (8) SCC110)it is totally not justified for this court to interdict with the proceedings at the present stage. If the petitioner is ready and prepare to pay of the liability, it is left open to him to approach the bank without a concrete proposal. If any such approach is made by the petitioner before proceedings further steps under the Sarfaesi Act, the same shall be considered by the respondent bank and an appropriate decision shall be taken there on. W.P.(C)No. 9106 OF 2011 3 The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE