IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9410 of 2009(U) ------------------------------------- CRMP.1367/2009 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. M/S. UNIVERSAL FOODS, ERAVIPUTHUR KADAI, KATTATHURAI (P.O), KANYAKUMARY DIST. REP.BY ITS PARTNER, K.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI. 2. K.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, PARTNER, UNIVERSAL FOODS, KAVANATTU THODIYIL KIZHAKKETHIL, KILIKOLLOOR.P.O., KOLLAM-4. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.SADASIVAN SRI.S.ABU BAKER KUNJU SRI.JOY P.JOSE SRI.RAMAN JANARDHANAN SRI.SOJAN MATHEW SRI.C.G.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, KERALA SECRETARIATE,TRIVANDRUM. 2. DY.GENERAL MANAGER, SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, KALOOR BRANCH, FINANCE TOWER, KALOOR, COCHIN-17. 3. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. R1, R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R2 SMT.MARIAM MATHAI FOR R2 SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 9410 of 2009-U ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner availed financial facilities from the 2nd respondent Bank. Petitioner challenges Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is a notice issued by an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam under Sec.14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 proposing to take over possession of the properties. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Pathrose Mathai, learned senior counsel for the Bank besides learned Government Pleader. Of course, one of the contentions is that petitioner was not heard by the 3rd respondent. Learned senior counsel would point out that the remedy after possession is taken is to approach the Tribunal. I feel that the 3rd respondent should take a decision in the matter after hearing the petitioner. Accordingly, Ext.P2 is quashed. The 3rd respondent will afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking a decision in the WPC No. 9410/2009 -2- matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS