IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18399 of 2011(Y) --------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- T.K.SAJEEV, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. LATE KOCHU KUNJU, THAYYAPARAMBIL, VELLOOR, THAZHATHANGADI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT : ----------------------- ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, REP. BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, PADIJARE PEEDUKAYIL BUILDING, SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. BY ADV. SRI. SAJI P. JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 18399 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER DATED 7/12/2006. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 25/3/2011 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PRUDENTIAL NORMS ON ASSET CLASSIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 18399 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (“the Act”) initiated by the respondent for recovery of the loan amounts defaulted by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the proceedings are at the stage of sale of the secured assets. The petitioner submits that the bank may be directed to proceed against only a ratable portion of the secured assets sufficient to cover the amount due to the bank. The learned counsel for the bank submits that the same is not possible in view of the lie of the property in question. I am not inclined to go into this question in this writ petition. If the petitioner has any such claim, it is for him to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. In fact the Supreme Court has repeatedly frowned upon the High Courts entertaining writ petitions challenging proceedings under the Act under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that the petitioner should more appropriately approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for appropriate reliefs. Without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge