IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 23493 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SHAJI, AGED 49, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL, VARANAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH AT MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN-688 001. 2. REGIONAL OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMECCC, RAJESWARI COMPLEX, PERUNNAI, CHANGANACHERRY-686 102. 3. AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, RAJESWARI COMPLEX, PLERUNNAI, CHANGANACHERRY-686 102. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY FINANCE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, UNION OF SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R1-3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN ASGI MR. T.P.M. IBRAHIM KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 23493 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge is against proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act for realisation of arrears in a Bank loan availed by the petitioner. Consequent to default committed, the Bank proceeded against secured assets on issuing notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act, as per Ext.P1. Subsequently Ext.P2 notice was issued taking over possession of secured assets. Even though petitioner submitted that he had filed objection as evident from Ext.P3, receipt of any such document was denied through counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent. It is further submitted by the petitioner that after receipt of Ext.P1 notice, he had remitted an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- on 23.04.2010. According to the first respondent, even after giving credit to the entire amounts paid by the petitioner, the outstanding liability is more than Rs.4,00,000/-, along with interest due on the principal amount from 01.03.2008 onwards. 2. Challenge raised against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act could not be entertained in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The statute provides effective remedy for the petitioner to object the demand notice under Section 13 (2) and also to challenge further actions, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Hence contentions of the petitioner that Ext.P1 notice does not satisfy the mandatory requirements, 2 WP(C) No. 23493/2010 need not be considered and adjudicated upon by this Court. Under such circumstance, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition or to take any decision on the merits of the contentions. 3. However, Sri. K.C. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an appeal to this Court for permitting payment of the entire balance outstanding, within a reasonable time, in instalments. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Bank is opposing such prayer. Having considered totality of circumstances attendant in this case, I am of the opinion that some indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire liability within a reasonable time. 4. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 3 to keep further steps pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 in abeyance, on condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding in 'four' (4) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.09.2010 and on or before last date of the 3 (three) succeeding months. 5. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any of the instalment the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps. It is also made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any further challenge against such proceedings either by approaching this Court or any other Forum. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc