IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 14970 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MRS.JESSIE VIRGIN NAVIA,ST.MACHAELS CHURCH CAMPUS,NAGARCOIL,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BOARD FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION,JAWAHAR VYAPARABHAVAN,I-TOLSTOY MARGH,NEW DELHI. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER,CANARA BANK, INDUSTRIAL ADVISORY DIVISION,R M WING,HO 112, J C ROAD,BANGALORE-560 002. 4. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,CANARA BANK, CANTONMENT BRANCH,SPENCER JN.,M.G.ROAD, TRIVANDRUM. 5. M/S.HINDUSTAN CYLINDER COMPANY, 24/1690,TRAINAGE ROAD,KANNATTU MUKKU, TRIVANDRUM-4,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R3,4 R1 BY G.P.SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1:- COPY OF NOTICE DATED 28.7.2009 FROM R4 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2:- COPY OF NOTICE DATED 26.3.2010 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3:- COPY OF LETTER DTD.25.9.2006 TOGETHER WITH THE PROCEEDINGS. RESPONDENTS EXTS. ANNEXURE-A:- DETAILS OF LIMITS AVAILED BY R5 FROM 1986 AND SUBSEQUENT ENHANCEMENTS TILL 2001. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14970 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P2 notices issued by the 4th respondent, the Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Cantonment Branch, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Securitisation Act') and the possession notice issued by him. 2. It is stated that the property belonging to the petitioner was mortgaged in favour of the Canara Bank in connection with a loan availed by the 5th respondent, M/s.Hindustan Cylinder Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The Company had availed loans from other financial institutions as well. In 1992-93 the Company was declared as a sick unit. Steps were taken for revival of the Company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R). Though a scheme for rehabilitation was formulated, the same was not implemented. The B.I.F.R. recorded an opinion on 30.8.2006 that it was just, equitable and in the public interest that the Company be would up. The decision was communicated to the High Court of Kerala. The company court took up the matter and it is W.P.(C) No.14970 of 2010 2 numbered as C.P.No.30 of 2006. It is submitted that attempts are being made to revive the Company. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that the property which is sought to be proceeded against as per Exts.P1 and P2 does not belong to the Company, but it is the personal property of the petitioner. Therefore, the pendency of C.P.No.30 of 2006 is not a bar for proceeding against the petitioner under the Securitisation Act. It is also pointed out that even in such cases where the property belongs to the Company, the principles are well settled in Alahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and another [(2000) 4 SCC 406] and Rajasthan State Financial Corporation and another v. Official Liquidator and another [(2005)8 SCC 190]. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act at the appropriate stage and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 4. The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act. Moreover, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the pendency of C.P.No.30 of 2006 as the property sought to be proceeded against does not belong to the Company. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE cms