IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 32141 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- - - MR.BABU P.S., S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, H/4 GALAXY NEW RAIN, PUNATHILPADAM ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHIHAB RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, ALUVA BRANCH. BY SRI.S.EASWARAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 32141 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging actions initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the said Act. Consequent to default committed in repayment of loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, steps against the immovable property secured was initiated. According to the petitioner on receipt of Ext.P2 notice he had submitted Exts.P3 and P4 representations dated 16.10.2010 and 17.10.2010 respectively before the Bank. Ext.P4 (a) is the postal receipt evidencing despatch of the representation through registered post, on 19.10.2010. Going by contents of Exts.P3 and P4 it is revealed that the petitioner had offered for payment of the defaulted 2 WP(C) No. 32141/2010 amount in order to regularise the loan account. 2. Going by the scheme of the statute, it is evident that, on receipt of a demand under Section 13 (2), the borrower/guarantor is at liberty to raise objections/ representations. It is further noticed that the Bank is at an obligation to consider such objection/representation and to take a decision thereof. 3. Heard, Sri.S. Easwaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. Considering the fact that the petitioner had submitted Exts.P3 and P4 and also considering the fact that so far the Bank has not proceeded with further steps pursuant to Exts.P2 notice, I am of the opinion that the matter can be relegated for an appropriate decision by the respondents. 4. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider Exts.P3 and P4 and to take a decision thereof. 5. Needless to say that no further proceedings shall 3 WP(C) No. 32141/2010 be pursued by the respondents until a decision is taken on Exts.P3 and P4 and the same is communicated to the petitioner. Such decision shall be taken at the earliest, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc