IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15555 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.EAST END COMMUNICATIONS, ZENNETH PLAZA BUILDING, EZHUR ROAD, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.FIROZ P., ONXY KAKKADAVU ROAD, TIRUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.ANDHRA BANK, HEAD OFFICE AT 5-9-11 SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD-500 004. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF ANDHRA BANK, RETAIL CREDIT BRANCH, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560 027. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER & PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF ANDHRA BANK, FIRST FLOOR, PSM ARCADE, PAN BAZAR, TIRUR-676 101. BY ADV.SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR), SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15555 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :- P1 : COPY OF THE RECEIPTS EVIDENCING THE REPAYMENT TO THE LOAN ACCOUNT P2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.2.2011 P3 : COPY OF THE DETAILED OBJECTION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 4.3.2011 P4 : COPY OF CAVEAT OP LODGED BEFORE THE ERNAKULAM DRT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15555 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Apprehension expressed in this writ petition is against coercive steps, which may be initiated without considering Ext.P3 reply, alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner against Ext.P2 statutory demand raised under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). 2. The petitioner firm availed a cash credit facility to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs from the respondent Bank and the Managing partner of the firm had availed a vehicle loan to the tune of Rs.3,45,000/- from the very same Bank. The loans in question were secured by creating equitable mortgage on immovable properties having an extent of 20 cents and 1.46 cents comprised in Tirur Amsom, Kott desom, Tirur taluk in Malappuram District. Consequent to default committed in repayment of the loans in question, 2 W.P.(C).No.15555 of 2011 proceedings were initiated and Ext.P2 notice was issued under Section 13(2). 3. According to the petitioner, a reply was submitted on receipt of Ext.P2, as evidenced from Ext.P3. It is the complaint of the petitioner that, without considering Ext.P3 and without taking any decision thereon as contemplated under Section 13(3A), the respondents are proceeding with further coercive steps. It is pointed out that the respondent had launched a Caveat petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, as evident from Ext.P4. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is seeking interference of this Court to give directions to the respondents to restrain further coercive steps till consideration of Ext.P3 and till a decision is taken on the objections raised. The petitioner interalia seeks direction to respondents to permit regularisation of the accounts. 4. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that, Ext.P2 notice issued by the 2nd respondent was send by registered post on 8.3.2011 and it 3 W.P.(C).No.15555 of 2011 was received by the petitioner firm as well as its partners on 9.3.2011 and on 12.3.2011. It is pointed out that the alleged reply, Ext.P3, is seen dated as 4.3.2011, evidently prior to receipt of Ext.P2 notice. It is further stated that the alleged reply as per Ext.P3 has not been received by the respondents, till date. Under the above circumstances, the contention now raised regarding violation under Section 13 (3A) has no basis and the writ petition is filed on totally frivolous grounds, is the submission. 5. Considering the fact that, the proceedings was only at the stage of issuing notice under section 13(2) and also considering the fact that the petitioner has got an effective statutory remedy against further steps, it may not be justified on the part of this Court to interdict with. Further, considering the contentions raised by the respondents, I am prima facie satisfied that, there is no violation of the provisions contained under Section 13(3A). Therefore, the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4 W.P.(C).No.15555 of 2011 6. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an appeal to this Court to the effect that the petitioner is ready and willing to make payment of the entire arrears due under the loan accounts, in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. On that basis, the petitioner seeks direction from this Court to restrain further coercive steps. Such a request is made on the basis of a specific undertaking that the petitioner as well as its partners are relinquishing all challenges raised against the proceedings and also relinquishing rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps initiated on the basis of Ext.P2 notice, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding in the cash credit facility as well as in the car loan account, in 5 (five) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.6.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months. 5 W.P.(C).No.15555 of 2011 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of the notices already issued, and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/