IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12588 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SHAJI PAUL, AGED 46, S/O.PAUL, KUTHUKALLINKAL HOUSE, 22/25 A, CATHERINE CONVENT ROAD, EDACOCHI-682 006, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ELIZABETH SHAJI PAUL, W/O.PAUL, AGED 38 YEARS, KUTHUKALLINKAL HOUSE, 22/25 A, CATHERINE CONVENT ROAD, EDACOCHI-682 006, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI BANK HOME LOANS, PADMA BRANCH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 682 031. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, ICICI BANK LIMITED, FELICITY SQUARE, OPP.AG'S OFFICE, NEAR STATUE, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH- SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.12588 of 2011-W ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1 and P2 notices. The petitioners inter alia seek direction commanding the respondents not to initiate any coercive action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). 2. On a perusal of Exts.P1 and P2 it is evident that those are demand notices issued by the authorised officer of the Bank requiring the petitioners to clear the payment of the arrears. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank concede that no steps under the SARFAESI Act was initiated, till date. 3. The demand raised under Exts.P1 and P2 for payment of the amounts due under the loan account is a matter coming within the realm of contractual obligations arising out of the terms of the loan agreement. Any dispute W.P(C) No.12588 of 2011-W 2 pertaining to Exts.P1 and P2 notices could not be entertained in this writ petition, which is filed under Article 226. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised an apprehension that, without resorting to the procedure contemplated under the SARFAESI Act the respondent may take steps for forceful eviction of the petitioners. No relief can be granted on such an apprehension raised without any basis. Therefore, the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab