IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2111 of 2011(L)
1. K.V.RAGHAVAN, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CITY UNION BANK LTD., REP.BY ITS BRANCH
... Respondent
2. AUTHORISED OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :28/01/2011
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
WP(C).No.2111 of 2011-L.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 28th January, 2011.
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 notice
issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
2. Under the scheme of the Statute, the petitioner
has got opportunity to submit objections/representations
against the demand under Sec.13(2). It is mentioned that
the petitioner had already sent Ext.P3 letter, on receipt of
the notice in question. Under Sec.13(3) the respondent is at
an obligation to consider the same and to take a decision
thereof, and further to intimate such decision to the
petitioner. It is noticed that if the petitioner is aggrieved by
any such decision and further steps as contemplated under
Sec.13(4), he has got a remedy to approach the statutory
authority under Sec.17(1).
WP(C).No.2111 of 2011-L.
2
3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am
of the view that the issue raised in this writ petition is
premature to be considered. Hence the writ petition is
dismissed reserving rights if any available to the petitioner
to invoke statutory remedies. Needless to say that before
proceeding with any further steps the respondent should
intimate the decision taken on the basis of Ext.P3, to the
petitioner.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM,
(Judge)
Kvs/-