IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31560 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ P.VISWANATH,S/O.L.R.S.MANI,AGED 36 YEARS, 22/151,THIRUNELLAI,PALAKKAD-678 020. BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,CHIEF MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK,REGIONAL OFFICE,SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682031. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,SYNDICATE BANK, K.P.SHOPPING COMPLEX,T.B.ROAD,PALAKKAD-6789014. BY SRI.M.P.ASOK KUMAR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 31560 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 notice of demand, as contemplated under section 13(2). On receipt of the said notice the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2, offering payment of the amounts towards one time settlement in order to wipe off the entire liability. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Bank is taking hasty steps to proceed further, without considering Ext.P2. 2. Going by scheme of the Statute it is evident that the borrower/guarantor is entitled to file objections or representations against demand under section 13(2). It is further noticed that if any objection was received, the secured creditor is at an obligation to consider the same and take a decision thereon under section 13(3). I do not W.P.(C) No.31560/2010 2 find any reason to believe that the respondents will proceed with further coercive steps without taking a decision on Ext.P2 and intimating such a decision to the petitioner. 3. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is premature. 4. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to approach the concerned authority of the respondents to pursue his remedies as suggested under Ext.P2. 5. It is made clear that the respondents will be restrained from proceeding with further steps, till a decision is taken on Ext.P2 and the same is intimated to the petitioner. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.