IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13353 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :- ------------------------ SINAJ V.E., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. EASSAKHAN, PARTNER, M/S. MOBILE SPARE HOUSE, RESIDING AT VETTIKKAL, ACHUVEETTIL LANE, SRM ROAD, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENT(S) :- ------------------------- SYNDICATE BANK, SHANMUGHAM ROAD (MAIN) BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, ERNAKULAM SHANMUGHAM ROAD (MAIN), PIONERS TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 031. ADV. SRI.N.RAJENDRAN FOR R1 SRI.K.S.FRIJO FOR R1 SRI.RAMU RAJENDRAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C)No.13353 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May 2011 J U D G M E N T Relief sought for in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P1 petition filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam. Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of a loan availed from the respondent Bank, steps under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) were initiated. On invoking Section 14(1), the respondent Bank filed Ext.P1 petition before the CJM Court. It is admitted that the said petition is pending consideration and disposal before that court. 2. Contentions of the petitioner is that, steps under Section 14(1) was initiated without proper compliance of the mandatory procedure stipulated under Section 13(2), W.P.(C)No.13353 of 2011 -: 2 :- since the bank had failed to issue demand notice to all the persons cited as respondents in Ext.P1 petition. It is further contended that the 4th respondent in Ext.P1 expired and the proceedings could not be pursued without impleading his legal heirs. 3. Considering the nature of the contentions raised, I am of the view that, the petitioner can approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court pointing out the said defects in the proceedings initiated under Section 14(1). Needless to say that the Chief Judicial Magistrate is expected to pass orders for taking over possession of the property, only after being satisfied that there is proper compliance of the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 13(2). It is pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that the petitioner had already approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and the matter is under consideration of that court. 4. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that W.P.(C)No.13353 of 2011 -: 3 :- the writ petition can be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all contentions before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam. Needless to say that the Chief Judicial Magistrate is to take a decision on the matter after considering such objections. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. Jvt