IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 131 of 2011(N) ------------------------ PETITIONERS:- ------------------- 1. A.J.JAMES, S/O. P.J.JOSEPH, ARANGATHU HOUSE, ARUMANOOR POST, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. PRASAD JAMES, S/O. A.J.JAMES, -DO- -DO- (PROPRIETOR, ARANGATHU AQUA MINERALS, ARUMANOOR POST, KOTTAYAM). BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE AT ROTARY JUNCTION, POOJAPURA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN-695 012. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, STRESSED ASSET RESOLUTION CENTRE, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 002. 3. MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, SME BRANCH, 2ND FLOOR, PARACKAL BUILDINGS, KOTTAYAM-686 002. 4. MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ARUMANOOR BRANCH, PIN-686 002. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.S.DILIP FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.131 of 2011-N. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T 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). It is noticed that, against the impugned notice Ext.P8 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, initiating steps under Sec.13(4) of the Act, the petitioners have got effective remedy under Sec.17(1) of the Act. It is further noticed that the Hob'ble Supreme Court, in the decision in United Bank of India v. Sathyawati Tondon & others (2010(8) SCC 110) had deprecated in strong words the practice of the High Courts interdicting with the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. WP(C).No.131 of 2011-N. 2 2. Under such circumstance, this Court is not justified in interfering with this matter. However, the liberty to invoke statutory remedy or to seek indulgence of this Court if there is any emergent coercive steps for dispossession or sale of the property is initiated is reserved. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners as stated above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-