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. 36894 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- MANOJ.P., MANOJ BHAVAN, NANGYARKULANGARA.P.O., CHINGOLI VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, 40/974, II-ND FLOOR, R.S. BUILDING (ABOVE SSI BRANCH) M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 011. 2. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, M.G.ROAD RABCH, OPP: MAHARAJAS GROUND ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 011. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36894 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repayment of financial assistance availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against. However, it is stated that on receipt of Ext.P1 notice the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 reply stating that he had already taken steps for sale of the property in question and that he will be paying the entire liability within a period of six months. According to the petitioner, he had remitted a sum of Rs.65,000/- as evidenced from Ext.P3, after receipt of Ext.P1 notice. 2. The petitioner apprehends that coercive steps will be pursued without considering the request. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent bank submitted that, after receipt of Ext.P2, the petitioner had approached the bank and made an offer that the entire amounts will be W.P.(C).36894/10-J -2- paid within a short period. Such an offer was made on 8.9.2010, according to the respondent. But the petitioner had not so far remitted any amount further to such offer, is the contention. 3. It is pertinent to note that as per the provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act the respondent bank is at an obligation to consider objections/representations if any submitted against notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondents are at an obligation to consider Ext.P2 and any further representation if submitted on the basis of provisions contained in Section 13(3A) of the Act. 4. Needless to say that further coercive steps of recovery can be pursued only after taking a decision on such objections/representations and after intimating the same to the petitioner. 5. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of with the above observations and directing the respondent Bank to take appropriate steps as contemplated under Section 13(3A) of the Act. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb