IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 21551 of 2011(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. T.JAYASHANKAR,"AKASH", THAZHATHU KUNIYIL, PUTHIYANGADI.P.O, PAVANGAD, CALICUT-673 021. 2. P.V. TUSHARA, WIFE OF T.JAYASHANKAR,"AKASH", THAZHATHU KUNIYIL, PUTHIYANGADI.P.O, PAVANGAD, CALICUT-673 021. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF MYSORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, KOZHIKODE BRANCH,1ST FLOOR,CHIRAKKAL COMPLEX, RAILWAY STATION LINK ROAD,KOZHIKODE-673 002. 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, REGIONAL OFFICE,1ST FLOOR,75-76, OPPANAKKARA STREET,COIMBATORE-641 001. ADV. SRI.K.S.DILIP FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AV WPC.NO.21551/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS, DATED 07-01-2011. P2 : COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 20-02-2011. P3 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.6860/2011, DATED 8TH MARCH, 2011. P4 : COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 25TH MARCH, 2011. P5 : COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 30TH JULY, 2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE AV S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.21551 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioners submit that the proceedings are vitiated by illegalities. If that be so, it would be necessary to adduce evidence to prove those illegalities, which should more appropriately be done in a forum where the petitioners can adduce evidence. In fact the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that High Courts should not ordinarily entertain writ petitions challenging proceedings under the Act. Therefore, the petitioners' remedy lies in approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. In the circumstances, without prejudice to that right this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/