IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8923 of 2011(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------- JOHN THOMAS, VATHAPPALLIL HOUSE, KONGANDOOR P.O., AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN 686584, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.T.DOMINIC, VATHAPPALLIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DHANALAKSHMI BANK, KERALA ZONE, REGIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, FELICITY SQUARE, OPP.A.G.'S OFFICE, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, RECOVERY OF DEBT. 2. DHANALAKSHMI BANK, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, BUSINESS CENTRE, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 3. RAJAN.K., S/O.KRISHNAPILLAI, KOCHEZHUMAYIL, THEKKENADA, VAIKOM-686142. 4. K.RADHAMANI, D/O.KRISHNAPILLAI, VRINDAVANAM, THEKKENADA, VAIKOM-686142. 5. OMANA.K., D/O.KRISHNAPILLAI, THOTTATHIL, PANAVALLAY, CHERTHALA- 688566. R1 TO R2 ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.8923 of 2011-M ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T It is noticed that the challenge is against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). It is evident from Exts.P2 and P6 notices that, the proceedings is only at the stage of demand under Section 13(2). The demand raised under Ext.P3 was objected to by the petitioner, through a lawyer notice, Ext.P5. Considering the objections raised, a reply was issued by the respondent Bank, as evidenced from Ext.P6 as contemplated under Section 13 (3A). It is noticed that the Bank has not taken any further steps under Section 13(4), in which case the petitioner can invoke statutory remedy as provided under Section 17(1). 2. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is prepared to regularise the account by paying the amounts overdue. Counsel appearing for the W.P(C) No.8923 of 2011-M 2 respondents 1 and 2 submits that the Bank had requested the petitioner to regularise the account by producing certain documents required and by paying the amount overdue. If such request is complied with there may not be any impediment in permitting regularisation. 3. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition is highly premature. The petitioner is given liberty to work out remedies by approaching the appropriate authority among respondents 1 and 2. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. However, rights if any available to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy is reserved herewith. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab