IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2275 of 2011(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- S.A.PRASAD, RAILWAY QUARTERS NO.90 A, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE I.C.I.C.I BANK, VAZHUTHACAUD BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN-695 014. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK, B.O.RETAIL O.R.D, GROUND FLOOR, S 1, WHITE HEAVEN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 010. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH, SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2275 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Coercive steps of recovery initiated by resorting to proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) for realising amounts due under a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The sale notice published under Ext.P4 with respect to the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was inter alia challenged. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is mentioned that the immovable property in question was taken over possession by an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in a proceedings initiated under Section 14(1) and in spite of dispossession of the petitioner, the residence in question was seen locked by putting another lock, with respect to which a police complaint was already initiated at the behest of the respondent Bank. It is further stated that the petitioner, eventhough had approached on several occasions making offer for payments of the amounts overdue, had not remitted any amount and the loan account is in chronic default. It is also W.P.(C).2275/11-H -2- mentioned that the immovable property in question was sold on the basis of Ext.P4 notice for a sum of Rs.6,90,001/-. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge any steps initiated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act by invoking remedy available under Section 17(1) and also considering the fact that the property stands already sold, I am of the view that no relief can be granted in this writ petition. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to invoke statutory remedy if any available. It is further made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondent Bank for settlement of the account by seeking waiver of interest/penal interest and expenses to the possible extent. It is clarified that dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the Bank considering any such request and taking appropriate decision. The writ petition is therefore dismissed subject to the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb