IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 7248 of 2011(E) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SALEENA BEEVI,W/O.SAINULABDEEN,SABEEL MANZIL,CHERUVELI,CHULLIMANOOR.P.O,NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT THINAVILA VEEDU,PERUMKOOR,KONCHIRA.P.O,VEMBAYAM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SAINULABDEEN,S/O.JAMAL MUHAMMED,SABEEL MANZIL,CHERUVELI,CHULLIMANOOR.P.O,NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT THINAVILA VEEDU,PERUMKOOR,KONCHIRA.P.O,VEMBAYAM, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SALEENA BEEVI. BY ADV. MR. THOMAS ABRAHAM MR. DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW MR. K.S.HARIDAS MR. V.RENJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. FEDERAL BANK,NANTHANCODE BRANCH, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER-695 001. 2. BRANCH MANAGER,FEDERAL BANK,NANTHANCODE BRANCH,TRIVANDRUM. 3. CHIEF MANAGER,AUTHORISED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK,NANTHANCODE BRANCH,TRIVANDRUM-695001. 4. REGIONAL MANAGER,RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, KOCHI-682012 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN R1 BY ADV. MR. A.ANTONY SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7248 of 2011(E) APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ---------------------------------- P1:- THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED IN HINDU DAILY DATED 31.7.09 UNDER SECTION 13(2) P2:- THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED DATED 28/12/09 UNDER SECTION 13(4) P3:- THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAST REPRESENTATION DATED 4.3.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS. P4:- THE TRUE COPIES OF 4 SHEETS OF ACCOUNT STATEMENTS SUPPLIED BY THE BANK TO THE PETITIONERS. RESPPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :- NIL RKC. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7248 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners challenge proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, initiated by respondents 1 to 3 for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioners to the bank. Initially, this Court passed interim orders directing payment of certain amounts. The petitioners are stated to have paid the amounts. This Court was inclined to permit the petitioners to pay the balance amounts in instalments. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently disputes the liability to pay the amount demanded. 2. The learned counsel for the bank maintains that the amount demanded is the amount actually due from the petitioners in accordance with the loan agreement. The question as to what is the amount due is a question of fact. If the petitioners have any grievance in respect of the same, the W.P.(C)No.7248/11 2 petitioners have to take up the matter before an appropriate authority where the petitioners can adduce evidence in respect of the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners refuses the offer to permit the petitioners to pay off the balance amount in instalments. In the above circumstances, I do not have any option, but to relegate the petitioners to the remedy by way of appeal as provided under the Act itself. Without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.7248/11 3 W.P.(C)No.7248/11 4