IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27091 of 2010 (J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.A.PRAVEENKUMAR, S/O.P.BHASKARAN, PLEASANT, ARAVIND GHOSH ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.C.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (CALICUT) SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. HDFC BANK LTD., HDFC BANK HOUSE, SENAPATHI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL (WEST), MUMBAI - 400 011. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, H.D.F.C. BANK, GROUND FLOOR, 2ND FLOOR, SIMAX TOWER, OPP.GEM TVS KANNUR ROAD, NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE - 673 011. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, H.D.F.C. BANK LTD., CALICUT – 682394. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH, SC, HDFC BANK LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.27091 of 2010-J ---------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner availed a cash credit facility from the respondent Bank, repayment of which was in chronic default. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the arrears has now been mounted upto around Rs.1,80,00,000/-. According to the petitioner on receipt of Exts.P1 and P2 he had submitted Ext.P3 objections, and grievance is that now coercive steps are being threatened without considering Ext.P3 objections. 2. Going by the statute, it is evident that the authorised officer of the respondent Bank is bound to consider any representation or objection filed in reply to the notice under Section 13(2), and if the objection or representation is not acceptable, the same shall be communicated to the creditor. W.P(C) No.27091 of 2010-J 2 3. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that Ext.P3 was not preferred before the authorised officer, who is the third respondent, and if any such objection is submitted to the authorised officer the Bank has no objection in considering the same and taking a decision thereon. It is noticed that Ext.P3 is addressed to a particular officer of the Bank. However, since the petitioner had already submitted a representation, I am of the opinion that it is only just and proper to direct the authorised officer to consider the same with an opportunity afforded to the petitioner. Needless to say that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any decision which will be taken by such officer, he can resort to appellate remedy provided under the statute. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation submitted by the petitioner before the circle head of the respondent Bank at Calicut, a copy of which will be made available to that respondent by the petitioner. A decision on Ext.P3 shall be taken and intimated to the petitioner before proceeding with further steps. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE W.P(C) No.27091 of 2010-J 3 ab