IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 12674 of 2006(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- NAMPOOTHIRI E.S.R., MATTATHIL EDAMANA ILLOM, VAKATHANAM, KOTTAYAM, NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO.2, MADANPURKNEELAR, SARITHA VIHAR, NEW DELHI - 44. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMOD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., H.D.F.C. HOUSE, P.B.NO.1667, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.R.V.SATHYAPRIYAN NAIR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMV WPC NO.12674 OF 2006 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : P.1 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY DATED 14.03.2006. P.2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ON THE DOOR OF THE PETITIONER AFFIXED. P.3 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.09.2005. P.4 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 11.01.2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE AMV S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 12674 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 1st day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the Act”) for recovery of loan amounts defaulted by the petitioner. At the time of admission, this Court passed the following order: “Notice and interim stay on condition that the petitioner deposits Rs. 1.5 lakhs (Rupees one and half lakhs only) on or before the 15th of every month commencing from June, 2004.” The learned counsel for the bank submits that although the petitioner initially paid some amount, subsequently, he did not pay any amount. It is settled law that proceedings under the Act have to be challenged in an application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Supreme Court has repeatedly frowned upon the High Courts entertaining writ petitions challenging proceedings under the Act. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge - : 2 :-