IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29257 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.MAMMOOTTY, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT PANAPRAVAN HOUSE, DAM SITE ROAD, THARIYODE NORTH P.O., PADINJARATHARA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.JOSE SMT.TESSY JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, PADINJARETHARA BRANCH, P.O.PADINJARETHARA, WAYANAD DISTRICT REPRESENTING THE CANARA BANK PADINJARETHARA BRANCH. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK CIRCLE OFFICE, CHALAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTING THE CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE. ADV.SRI.P.GOPINATHA MENON, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 29257 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 and P2 notices issued by the 1st respondent demanding payment of arrears due in the loan account, which is availed by the petitioner from the 1st respondent Bank. On receipt of Ext.P1 and P2 notices the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 representation before the 1st respondent seeking time for settlement of the liability. Challenge in this writ petition is on the premise that the respondents have initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), without considering such request. 2. But it is evident from Ext.P1 and P2 that those are only demand notices issued by the Bank and those notices are not coming within the purview of SARFAESI Act. Since none of the statutory steps as provided under the Act has been initiated by the respondent Bank, it seems that the writ petition is highly misconceived. Since there is no challenge against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act invoking this court’s W.P.(C).29257/09-B 2 jurisdiction, interference with the demand raised by a Bank at this stage will be highly improper. It is for the petitioner to pursue remedies before the respondent Bank as prayed in Ext.P3. 3. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to challenge proceedings if any which may be initiated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb