IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 19079 of 2009(D) -------------------------- CMP.1378/2008 of C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K SURESH BABU, S/O.LATE P.K.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, MATHIYOTTUMADATHIL HOUSE, THIRUVALLOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR. P.V.BABY MR. R.KIRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, NEDUMANGAD BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFICER, CHIEF MANAGER (ADVANCES) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGION II, ZONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. MR. K.S.DILIP, SC FOR SBT FOR R1 & 2 ` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.19079 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). On an earlier occasion the petitioner had approached this court challenging the vary same proceedings and under Ext.P2 judgment indulgence was shown by this court permitting payment of the amount due in various installments. it is noticed that thereafter the petitioner was allowed further time by extending the period stipulated for effecting payment. In view of the above facts and circumstances I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition filed without exhausting the effective alternate remedy available under the SARFAESI Act. 2. It is stated by the standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that pursuant to an order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court under Section 14, the secured asset has already been taken over possession. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to approach statutory authorities. W.P.(C).19079/09-D 2 3. It is also made clear that this will not preclude the petitioner from raising any dispute against amounts due under any other loan transaction to which the same assets of immovable property is offered as security. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb