IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21433 of 2009(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BOBBY SEBASTIAN, W/O. P. RAJEENDARAN, SPARTA 1006 PRESTIGE ACROPOLIS, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. BY ADVS. MR.S.EASWARAN, MR.P. MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM), MR.M.A.AUGUSTINE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, ICICI BANK LTD. NEAR PADMA JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. ICICI BANK LTD, CORPORATE OFFICE, ICICI TOWERS, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400 051. R1 BY ADVS. MR. K.K.M.SHERIFF, MR.LAL K.JOSEPH, MR.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN, SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.21433/2009-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER DTD. 28/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE ICICI BANK. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10/06/2009 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM, IN CRL.M.P. NO.1659/2009 IN CRIME NO. 500 OF 2008. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 04/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPTS DTD. 16/04/2009, 25/04/2009, 12/05/2009 AND 27/06/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 19/03/09. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 21433 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Grievance of the petitioner is against proceedings initiated against her under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) for realisation of amounts due in a housing loan account, which was availed by her from the 1st respondent Bank. It is stated that the petitioner was not issued with any notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act and that she was denied of opportunity to dispute the demand. It is apprehended that the respondent may take coercive steps for dispossession of the petitioner from the apartment wherein she is residing. It is further stated that she had effected considerable repayments, even after the alleged default. But still the respondents are persuing coercive steps. Therefore the writ petition is filed seeking direction for issuing notice W.P.(C)No. 21433 of 2009 -2- under Section 13 (2) and also for permitting regularization of the loan account, on keeping further steps in abeyance. 2. It is submitted that pursuant to interim orders issued by this court on 30.07.2009 and 09.09.2009, the petitioner had effected payment of a total sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. The petitioner is seriously disputing correctness of the arrears, which is demanded by the respondents. It is stated that even thereafter the petitioner had effected payment of the amount of Rs.1 lakh in November 2009. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent contention of the petitioner regarding lack of service of notice under 13 (2), is refuted. It is stated that the notice dated 19.03.2009 issued under Section 13 (2) was sent to the petitioner as well as her husband through registered post, but the same were returned unserved. Copy of notice is produced along with the counter affidavit as Ext.R1 (a). Further the respondents have produced a statement of account from which it is discernible that there is a total W.P.(C)No. 21433 of 2009 -3- outstanding of defaulted installments to the tune of Rs.12,20,239/- as on 19.11.2009. 4. Since the matter is only at the stage of 13 (2) notice, I am of the opinion that interference of this court is not at all warranted. The petitioner can object the demand under Section 13 (2) and the respondents are bound to issue reply to such objections. Since the petitioner is seriously disputing correctness of the amount in arrears, it is proper for her to raise such disputes in reply to 13 (2) notice. Eventhough notice under Section 13 (2) was issued much earlier, it is evident that it was not served on the petitioner. Therefore I am of the opinion that the petitioner shall be provided with a further chance to raise objections against the demand. 5. Under such circumstances the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to raise objections against Ext.R1 (a) notice within a period of 10 days from today. The respondents are directed to treat such objection if received within the time stipulated, as an W.P.(C)No. 21433 of 2009 -4- objection validly submitted against the notice under Section 13 (2) and shall give appropriate reply after considering such objections. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/