IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1219 of 2008 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14736/2007 Dated 11/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT / PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- KERALA DHANA VYAVASAYA KURIES & LOANS (P) LTD., TC/XXXV/1339, SHORNUR ROAD, TRICHUR-680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, XAVIER P.GEORGE, PALATTY HOUSE, ELTHURUTH P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS : -------------------------------------------------- 1. UCO BANK, SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-1, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, UCO BANK, SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-1. 3. K.B.THANKAPPAN, S/O.BALAN, KARUMATHIL HOUSE, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, P.O.MANNUTHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE CABINET SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. BY SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN FOR R1 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G. FOR R4 SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.1219 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, C.J. The initiation of proceedings by the respondent Bank under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the Act) was called in question by the petitioner before this court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Petitioners have raised various contentions and those contentions have been elaborately noticed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition. Concluding remarks of the learned Single Judge is that since petitioner has alternate, effective and efficacious remedy against the proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank, he would decline to entertain the writ petition. 3. Sri.Jijo Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that by virtue of Section 35 of the Act, the Tribunal may not be in a position to give any relief to the appellant. In our view, the submission of the learned counsel may not be correct. The remedy provided under the Act is an effective and efficacious remedy against the proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank. The petitioner is expected to exhaust that remedy. Bypassing that remedy, the petitioner cannot approach this court. 4. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in relegating the petitioner to approach the W.A.No.1219 OF 2008 :: 2 :: Tribunal for redressal of all his grievance. In view of the above, while concurring with the findings and conclusions made by the Learned Single Judge, we reject the writ appeal. However, we grant liberty to the appellant to approach the Tribunal within a months' time from today, in which event, the Tribunal shall dispose of the application/appeal in accordance with law without reference to period of limitation. All the contentions of both the parties are left open.. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes/dk.