IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21587 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.K.VARGHESE,S/O.KOCHUCHAKKU, AGED 56 YEARS,KAVUNGAL HOUSE, AVITTATHUR,IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY MR. ANIL GEORGE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,CHALAKKUDY TOWN BRANCH,CHALAKKUDY TOWN, THRISSUR-680101. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER (RCPC), STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, BHARATHAKSHEMAM BUILDING, ST.THOMAS COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR-680005. 3. THE DEBT RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM. 4. SRI.M.I.SEBASTIAN,S/O.K.K.JOHN, PROPRIETOR,S.B.I.INDUSTRIES, MANGALATH HOUSE,ALOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. MR. P.V. SURENDRANATH R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 21587 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the day of 5th August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI Act. The main grievance projected in the Writ Petition is that, the proceedings are already pending before the DRT, Ernakulam and in the said circumstances, the respondent Bank is not justified in resorting to the steps under the SARFAESI Act. The legal position in this regard stands already answered by the Apex Court against the petitioner as per the decision reported in M/s Transcore Vs. Union of India and another (AIR 2007 SC 712). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submit that, the relief prayed for in the Writ Petition is confined to the opportunity to file a detailed objections in response to the notice issued under Section 13 (2) before proceeding with the matter any further. The said right has been crystallized in view of the amendments brought in to the Statute by incorporating Sub Section 3 A to Section 13; besides the position as made clear by the Apex Court on the point in Mardia Chemicals' Case [Mardia Chemicals Vs. Union of India (2004 (4) SCC 311)]. WP (C) No.21587 of 2009 : 2 : 3. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to file a statement of objections in response to Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 13 (2) and if any such objection is filed within two weeks from today the same shall be considered as having filed within time and further proceedings shall be pursued against the petitioner only after considering the same in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd