IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33879 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- NABEESA, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.K.A.SHAMSU, KUNNATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, PERUMANNOOR, MALA, CHALISSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.N.M.MADHU SRI.M.C.ASHI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- INDIAN BANK REP.BY ITS ATHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, CIRCLE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682 035 BY ADV. SRI.S. SREEKUMAR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.33879 of 2010-H ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Ext.P1 is the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. The petitioner is a guarantor. According to the petitioner, if the respondent Bank proceeds against the property of the borrower, the debt can be recovered. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank on instructions submitted that steps as contemplated under Section 13(2) has already been taken on issuing notice on 3.11.2010 and that the respondent Bank is proceedings with further steps. It is also mentioned that the property belonging to the borrower is not having sufficient valuation and proceedings are initiated against both the parties simultaneously. W.P(C) No.33879 of 2010-H 2 3. Eventhough learned counsel for the petitioner made an offer on behalf of the petitioner for purchase of the property in question, at the upset price fixed, the respondent is not amenable for such a suggestion. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has to seek appropriate remedy under Section 17(1) of the Act. 4. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition without prejudice his rights to invoke remedy as provided under Section 17(1). 5. Permission is granted and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to invoke remedy as provided under the SARFAESI Act. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab