IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1335 of 2009(H)
1. P.K.KUMARAN,
... Petitioner
2. K.P.JAYAKUMAR.
3. LATHA NAIR, BRANCH MANAGER,
4. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO.OP.BANK LTD.,
5. AUTHORISED OFFICER,
Vs
1. K.J.GEORGE @ JOY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :22/01/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.1335 of 2009-H
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009.
JUDGMENT
1.The petitioner is a guarantor for a transaction
under which the fourth respondent had issued a
loan facility.
2.According to the petitioner, he was essentially
cheated by certain persons thereby duping him and
depriving him of property. The agreement,
according to him, has been created in a dubious
manner. It is pointed out that on his complaint,
the police investigated a case and a charge has
been made before the competent criminal court.
These facts would be mixed questions of law and
facts.
3.The petitioner contends that no notice under
Section 13(2) was issued preceding the impugned
WP(C)1335/2009 -: 2 :-
Exts.P8 and P9. He also contends that as a prelude
to Ext.P8, there ought to be yet another notice to
be served in terms of the amendment of 2007 to
Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement)
Rules, 2002. He further contends that publication
of Ext.P9 in the newspaper is also quite
unsustainable. These are contentions which could
be raised appropriately for consideration of the
DRT in an application under Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act.
4.As of now, DRT, K & L is being manned by a
presiding officer on regular basis. This is a
great relief to the debtors and creditors
belonging to this part of India.
I do not find any ground for this Court to extend
the visitorial jurisdiction when the petitioner
has adequate efficacious remedy by recourse to the
DRT, more particularly when the impugned notice
Ext.P8 is issued only on 6-1-2009 and the
petitioner would be within time to invoke Section
WP(C)1335/2009 -: 3 :-
17 of the SARFAESI Act. The writ petition is hence
dismissed without prejudice to that course.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/