IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 7383 of 2011(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M/S.NEOLITE BUILDERS PVT.LTD., T.C.NO.15/42(2), DIMOND HILL, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 010 REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR, G.PADMAKUMAR. 2. G.PADMAKUMAR, M/S.NEOLITE BUILDERS PVT. LTD., T.C.NO.15/42, DIMOND HILL, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 010. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SRI.N.SASI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, HDFC BANK HOUSE, REMEDIAL MANAGEMENT UNIT, FIRST FLOOR, CHOICE TOWERS, MANORAMA JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM-16. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR R1 SRI.T.RAJESH – SC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.7383 of 2011-W ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Exts.P2 and P5 notices issued under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner is raising some serious disputes regarding correctness of the amounts now sought to be recovered. Under Ext.P5 the petitioner was demanded to handover peaceful possession of the secured assets, failing which it was informed that appropriate proceedings under the Act will be resorted. According to the petitioner Ext.P5 is not a notice issued intimating about the actions taken as contemplated under Section 13(4). Therefore, apprehending that the steps will be taken for dispossessing the petitioner from the property without issuing any notice under Section 13(4), this writ petition is filed. 2. Standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that, with respect to the arrears in the loan account, the Bank had filed O.A before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and W.P(C) No.7383 of 2011-W 2 the same was decreed. It is further submitted that the challenge raised by the petitioner against the decree (final order) before the appellate tribunal also failed. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the order of the appellate tribunal is being challenged before this Court. 3. Considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that the dispute pertaining to correctness of the amounts under demand could not be resolved in this proceedings which is initiated under Article 226. Further it is noticed that, as on today there is a concluded decree passed by the competent tribunal fixing the liability. However, in view of the effective alternative remedy available under the SARFAESI Act this Court may not justified in interdicting with the proceedings. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy against the steps under the SARFAESI Act. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ab