IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST APRIL 2009 / 1ST VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 12476 of 2009(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.M. THOMAS, PROPRIETOR, KUTTAN'S LAND, PLAMMOOTTIL HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. JESSYMOL THOMAS, W/O. P.M. THOMAS, PLAMMOOTTIL HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR POST, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. MR.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER, AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGION-II, ZONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR BRANCH, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR POST, CHANGANACHERRY. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.K.S.DILIP, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.12476 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 21st day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. At the time of issue of Section 13(2) notice, the petitioner had approached this Court and suffered Ext.P4 judgment. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed additional objections to Section 13(2) notice, which has culminated in an order under Section 13(4) of the Act, which is under challenge before me. I am of opinion that after suffering Ext.P4 judgment the petitioner cannot now seek remedies in another writ petition. Ext.P4 judgment reads thus: “Ext.P1 is only a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Going by the law laid by the Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. & Others v. Union of India & Others [2004 (4) SCC 311] issuance of such a notice cannot generate a litigation. Exts.P2 and P3 objections of the petitioners are placed before the bank. It is for the bank to deal with those objections in terms of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any measure taken under section 13(4), they would be entitled to invoke the provisions of section 17 of that Act, particularly when the submissions on behalf of the petitioners are that the rate of interest applied is contrary to the loan agreements and that the residential building, which is notified in the Section 13(2) notice, is not part of the security interest. Leaving open all contentions, this writ petition is closed, preserving the right of the petitioners to seek reliefs before the competent authority in case any measure is taken. It would also be open to the petitioners to meet the first respondent and seek the results of Exts.P1 and P2. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.” In the same itself the petitioner has been relegated to the remedy by way of appeal under Section 17 of the Act against an order which may w.p.c.12476/09 2 be passed under Section 13(4) of the Act. The petitioner is bound by Ext.P4 judgment. That being so, the petitioner can now only seek appellate remedies under Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge