K.K.Varghese vs State Bank Of India on 5 August, 2009

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

K.K.Varghese vs State Bank Of India on 5 August, 2009

Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21587 of 2009(P)


1. K.K.VARGHESE,S/O.KOCHUCHAKKU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHIEF MANAGER (RCPC),

3. THE DEBT RECOVERY OFFICER,

4. SRI.M.I.SEBASTIAN,S/O.K.K.JOHN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :05/08/2009

 O R D E R
                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    W.P. (C) No. 21587 of 2009
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
               Dated, this the day of 5th August, 2009

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI Act. The main grievance projected in the Writ Petition is that, the proceedings are already pending before the DRT, Ernakulam and in the said circumstances, the respondent Bank is not justified in resorting to the steps under the SARFAESI Act. The legal position in this regard stands already answered by the Apex Court against the petitioner as per the decision reported in M/s Transcore Vs. Union of India and another (AIR 2007 SC 712).

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submit that, the relief prayed for in the Writ Petition is confined to the opportunity to file a detailed objections in response to the notice issued under Section 13 (2) before proceeding with the matter any further. The said right has been crystallized in view of the amendments brought in to the Statute by incorporating Sub Section 3 A to Section 13; besides the position as made clear by the Apex Court on the point in Mardia Chemicals' Case [Mardia Chemicals Vs. Union of India (2004 (4) SCC 311)]. WP (C) No.21587 of 2009 : 2 :

3. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to file a statement of objections in response to Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 13 (2) and if any such objection is filed within two weeks from today the same shall be considered as having filed within time and further proceedings shall be pursued against the petitioner only after considering the same in accordance with law.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court