IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27946 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ACHANKUNJU.A.THOMAS, QUARTERS NO.22, E P F STAFF QUARTERS, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- AUTHORISED OFFICER, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE, CORPORATION LIMITED, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16. ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI. SAJISH PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON 13/09/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.27946 of 2010-P ---------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge is against Ext.P1 notice, which is issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). According to the petitioner he had submitted objections to Ext.P1 notice, as evidenced from Ext.P2. There is serious dispute raised regarding correctness of the demand, which needs adjudication on the basis of factual aspects. Going by the provisions, the respondent Bank is bound to consider the objections and to issue a reply thereof to the petitioner. It is further noticed that if coercive steps under Section 13(4) is proceeded against, the petitioner has got an effective remedy by way of appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised complaint that, inspite of submitting Ext.P2 objection no decision has been taken by the respondent Bank and that further steps are being proceeded with. 2. In view of the effective remedy available under the statute, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter on merits. If W.P(C) No.27946 of 2010-P 2 the respondent had received the objections as per Ext.P2, it will be considered and a reply thereof will be issued to the petitioner, before proceeding with further steps. It is for the petitioner to resort to further remedies available under the statute, if he is aggrieved by any such reply. 3. The respondent is directed not to proceed with further steps unless such a reply is given to Ext.P2 objection. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate statutory remedy. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab