IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 35327 of 2007(E)
1. MRS. PANKAJAVALLY P.T.,
... Petitioner
2. MR. UPENDRAN.P,
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR &
... Respondent
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
4. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
5. HDFC LTD., HDFC HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC, HDFC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/12/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
=W.P.(C) = =35327= = = = = = =
= = =No. = = OF 2007 - E
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner No. 1 was issued Ext. P1 notice under Section 13(2)
of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Petitioner responded by
Ext. P2 reply and thereupon Ext. P3 order was passed. As the
default continued, Bank has initiated proceedings under Section 14
and Ext. P4 discloses that also. It is at that stage this writ petition
has been filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings
initiated.
2. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed a statement in which it is
stated that both the petitioners were well placed in service and that
after availing of the loan they have committed 33 consecutive
defaults. It is also stated that the cheques issued were
dishonoured. Despite cases filed under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act even service of summons has been
deliberately avoided. It is stated that on account of the chronic
WPC No.35327/07
-2-
default that was committed for a long period the only option
available to them was to have initiated proceedings under the
Securitisation Act. Respondents therefore attempt to justify the
action what they have done.
3. As at present going by the figures indicated, the amount
due from the petitioner is Rs.5,13,621/-. Petitioner has contentions
on merits of the claim raised by the respondents and those
contentions were urged by the petitioner in Ext.P2. It was
considering this that the Bank has issued Ext.P3 rejecting the
contentions. It was thereafter that the proceedings were initiated
under Section 14 of the Act. In these circumstances, the remedy
available to the petitioner is to pursue the matter by approaching
the appellate authority created under the Act.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-