IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9169 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT. UNNIMAYAKUTTY, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.KRISHNAN, MOOSATH, THENATTU ILLAM, THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S CANARA BANK, MAIN BRANCH, K.K. ROAD, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER, K.K. ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICR AND CHIEF MANAGER, CANARA BANK, KOTTAYAM MAIN BRANCH, K.K. ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 3. CHETHIPUZHA ASSOCIATES, REP. BY PROPRIEWTRIX, SMT. TEENU BOBBY, IIND FLOOR,FAZAL BUILDING, PALA ROAD, ETTUMANOOR. 4. CHETHIPUZHA ASSOCIATES, REP. BY MANAGING PARTNER, BOBBY JACOB IIND FLOOR FAZAL BUILDING, PALA ROAD, ETTUMANOOR. 5. TENU BOBBY, W/O. BOBBY JACOB, CHETHIPUZHA HOUSE, MALAGIRI P.O., KOTTAYAM. 6. BOBBY JACOB, S/O THOMAS JACOB, CHETHIPUZHA HOUSE, AMALAGIRI P.O., KOTTAYAM. By STANDING COUNSEL SRI N D PREMACHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 9169 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner faces proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. She had earlier come to this court on the plea that no notice under Section 13(4) was issued. That led to Ext.P1 judgment, whereby this court recorded the statement of the bank that notice under Section 13(4) would be issued. 2. Following that, the bank also filed an O.A under the RDB Act. That is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It appears that the petitioner attempts to project a case of fraud and collusion between the principal debtor and some of the officers of the bank resulting in deprivation of the property of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner's son has given a statement in that regard to the Central Bureau of Investigation which is going into the allegations of some of the officers even at the instance of the bank. 3. With the aforesaid, it is quite clear that the disputes raised can be resolved only on evaluation of materials including WP(C) 9169/2009 2 evidence and by considering the rival contentions on the disputed question of fact. Obviously therefore it would be only advisable for this court to keep its hands off from entering into such adjudication. The petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy to raise all such grievance under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act. 4. Hence without prejudice to the petitioner's right to move Debt Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act, this writ petition is dismissed, preserving all the contentions of the petitioner. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/24/3