IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 17682 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ANNIE THOMAS, W/O.THOMAS, EDAKUDIYIL HOUSE, KADAMBAKOD,EAST KODALI, P.O.PADY., THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, ROUND SOUTH, THRISSUR-PIN-688001 2. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, KODAKARA BRANCH, KODAKARA, THRISSUR REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,PIN-688001 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BAN R1 & R2 BY ADV. SMT.LIZA P.CHERIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.17682/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 19.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002. P2:- COPY OF THE RECIEPT DT. 3.6.2010 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 12000/-. P3:- COPY OF THE RECIEPT DTD. 15.6.2010 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 30000/-. P4:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 11.9.2010 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.8000/-. P6:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.D 14.9.2010 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 7000/-. P6:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT. 29.9.2010 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1040/-. P7:- COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE DT.D 24.2.2011 UNDER SECTION (4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT. P8:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 11.2.2011 INTIMATING ABOUT THE OVERDUE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT.D 11.4.2011 OF THE HONOURABLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. P10:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 30.6.2009 OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPLE SUB JUDGE, IRINJALAKKUDA IN OS. 931/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 17682 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 initiated by the respondents for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the respondent. 2. This Court, on 1.7.2011 passed the following order: “SC enters appearance on behalf of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that he had failed in complying with the condition stipulated in Ext.P9 order issued by the DRT. However, a request for granting stay against drastic steps for dispossession of the property was sought for, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and that he will withdraw the securitisation application. On the other hand, it is offered that the entire amount due to the bank will be paid within a short period. Under the above circumstances, dispossession and sale of the property is stayed for a period of one month, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, within one month from today and produce proof regarding withdrawal of the securitisation application.” Admittedly, the petitioner has not paid the amount as directed in the said order. It is settled law that proceedings under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 can be challenged only in an application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In fact, the Supreme Court has time and again cautioned High Courts against entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging W.P(C) No. 17682 of 2011 -: 2 :- proceedings under the Act. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek remedies under the Act, this writ petition is dismissed. If the petitioner has already filed one, it would be open to the petitioner to prosecute the same appropriately. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/