IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6435 of 2011(D) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- A.N.MINHAS, S/O.NOOR MUHAMMED, JAHANNARA HOUSE, P.O.PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. GENERAL MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., UP-HILL, MALAPPURAM – 679 303. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PERINTHALMANNA – 679 303. ADV. SRI.V.K.KRISHNA MENON, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6435 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). It is noticed that, Ext.P10 notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, making demand for payment of the amount due, within 60 days. Going by scheme of the statute, the petitioner has got a remedy to raise objections or to submit any representation, on receipt of such demand. Further, under Section 13(3A) the respondent is at an obligation to consider such objections/representations, if any received, and to give a reply after considering the same. It is stated by the petitioner that on receipt of Ext.P1 he had submitted Ext.P2 request before the 1st respondent seeking time for a period of six months for payment of the amount overdue under the loan account, and to regularise the account. 2. Heard, standing counsel appearing for respondents. It is pointed out that Ext.P2 representation was not filed by the petitioner within the statutory limit of 60 days prescribed under W.P.(C).6435/11 -2- Section 13(2) and hence the respondent Bank is not at an obligation to consider the same. 3. However, I am of the view that since no coercive steps has been initiated subsequent to Ext.P1 notice and since the limited prayer made in Ext.P2 is only to permit regularisation, interest of justice will be served if the respondents are directed to consider Ext.P2 and to take a decision thereof. 4. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider Ext.P2 and to take a decision regarding the request for permitting regularisation, at the earliest. 5. Further proceedings if any can be pursued only after taking such a decision and intimating the same to the petitioner. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb