IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 28777 of 2010(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.S.SREEJITH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. LATE P.K.SREENIVASN, POOTHARA HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN – 695 001. 2. THE SYNDICATE BANK, THIRUVALLA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN – 686 101. R1 & R2 BY SRI. R.S. KALKURA, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28777 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of a loan availed from the respondent Bank, proceedings were initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. 2. It was noticed that the petitioner had not availed of any remedy under the statute at any stage of the proceedings as contemplated under Section 13(2) or 13(4). It was brought to notice of this court that the respondent bank had already invoked Section 14(1) and proceedings in this regard was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. 3. However, as a gesture of indulgence, when the writ petition came up for consideration on 17.9.2010 dispossession of the petitioner from the property was stayed, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of W.P.(C).28777/10 -2- Rs.7,50,000/- within three weeks thereof. It is submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the condition till date. 4. Under the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition in order to restrain the bank from proceeding with further steps under the SARFAESI Act. This is especially in view of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had deprecated such interferences, as per the decision reported in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others (2010 (8) SCC 110). However, the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue statutory remedies, if any available, before the appropriate authorities. 5. In the result the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner under law to invoke statutory remedies before the appropriate authority. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb