High Court Kerala High Court

K.C.Chacko vs The Authorized Officer(Chief … on 30 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
K.C.Chacko vs The Authorized Officer(Chief … on 30 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2851 of 2009(M)


1. K.C.CHACKO, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 62 YRS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 50 YRS, S/O.JOSEPH,

                        Vs



1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER(CHIEF MANAGER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ERUMELI BRANCH

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :30/01/2009

 O R D E R
        THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

           W.P.(C).No.2851 of 2009-M

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009.

                   JUDGMENT

The first petitioner is a co-obligant of a loan

availed by his son for educational purposes. The

second petitioner had mortgaged his property to

support that loan. The loan was availed in 2004

July for an amount of Rs.10 lakhs plus interest.

First petitioner’s son utilized that money for

studies in UK and is now stated to be employed.

There is delay in repayment and hence, the

impugned notice under Section 13(2) of the

SARFAESI Act has been issued. In terms of the

decision of the Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals

and others v. Union of India and others [(2004)

4 SCC 311], the petitioners have no right to

challenge the notice under Section 13(2). The

petitioners appear to be desirous to pay off the

outstandings and avert the distress action by

WP(C)2851/2009 -: 2 :-

further steps under Section 13(4). They also

offer that they would be prepared to remit even

at the rate of Rs.50,000/- as against the agreed

amount of Rs.17,000/- per month. These are all

matters which can be worked out between the bank

and the petitioners and judicial interference is

not called for. Hence, this writ petition is

dismissed without prejudice to the right of the

petitioners to seek redressal from the bank.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.

Sha/100209