IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 10030 of 2011(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, (AUTHORISED OFFICER) REGIONAL OFFICE, FEDERAL BANK LTD., SREE RAJARAJESWARY BUILDING, CHURCH ROAD, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND, SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. M.K. NATARAJAN, S/O. KARUMBANKOCHAN, THATTAKULANGARA VELI, KANICHUKULANGARA.P.O, CHERTHALA - 688 544. 2. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA - 688 501. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ, SMT.M.SHAJNA, R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.10030/2011-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 13 (2) OF THE SECURITISATION ACT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD. 11/01/2011. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.CC.47/2011 BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSEL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN I.A. 35/11. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 10030 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5, an interim order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha in I.A.35/11 in C.C.47/2011. 2. First respondent is a defaulter to the petitioner Bank. The petitioner, Bank thereupon initiated proceedings under the Securitisation Act. It is aggrieved by the same the first respondent filed Ext.P4 complaint before the 2nd respondent along with I.A.35/11 in which Ext.P5 interim order has been passed. By this order, the petitioner, Bank has been restrained and prohibited from proceeding against the first respondent under the Securitisation Act. 3. Irrespective of the other contentions, in my view, if a person is aggrieved by the proceedings under the Securitisation Act, the remedy available is to take recourse to the remedies provided under the Act itself. In such circumstances, W.P.(C) No. 10030 OF 2011 :2 : proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 cannot be initiated and the legal proceedings cannot be defeated by obtaining interim orders such as Ext.P5. Therefore Ext.P5 interim order is wholly unsustainable and for that reason Ext.P5 order is quashed. Thus the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P5. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-