IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 8689 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- 1. P.R.RAJESH, S/O.RAJAPPAN, AGED 35 YEARS, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULINKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA AT PRESENT RESIDING AT BHUVANESWARI GARDENS, KIDANGANPARAMBU, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SMT.ARCHANA RAJESH, W/O.RAJESH, AGED 33 YEARS, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULINKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA AT PRESENT RESIDING AT BHUVANESWARI GARDENS, KIDANGANPARAMBU, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM SRI.R.RATHEESH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. INDUS IND BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, INDUS IND BANK, C.S.N.BUILDING, DIST.CORD WARD, OPP.S.D.V.SCHOOL, ALAPPUZHA - 688 013. 3. ADDITONAL R3 - MR. SHAMEEN KHAN @ RIYAS, S/O ALIYAR, CHALAYIL HOUSE, VARANAM P.O. CHERTHALA. IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 17-6-2008 IN I.A.8689/08. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC FOR ADDL.R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8689 of 2008(H) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.08.2007 MADE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6.2.2008. EXT.P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION MADE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 19.2.2008. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.8689 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Since respondents 1 and 2 did not enter appearance, I granted an interim stay on condition that the petitioner pays an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs within one month. The petitioner filed an application for extension of time to pay the same. On 16.7.2008, reluctantly, I grant two more weeks time. The counsel for the petitioner is unable to tell me as to whether the amount has been paid or not. In the above circumstances, I heard the matter on merits. The petitioner is challenging proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. It is settled law that these proceedings have to be challenged before the Debt W.P(C)No.8689 of 2008 - 2 - Recovery Tribunal as provided under Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs