IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 6920 of 2008(W) PETITIONER: M/S. SILVER LINES, 9/793 COURT ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, P.P.ABDUL KALAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, U.CO. BANK, (A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING), JAYANTI BUILDING, PALAYAM JUNCTION, KOZHIKODE-1. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, U.CO. BANK, (A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING), JAYANTI BUILDING, PALAYAM JUNCTION, KOZHIKODE-1. 3. U.CO. BANK, (A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING), JAYANTI BUILDING, PALAYAM JUNCTION, KOZHIKODE-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 4. THE ZONAL MANAGER, U.CO. BANK, (A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING), ZONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 6920 OF 2008 - W = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P12 and the further prayer made by the petitioner is to direct the bank to consider and pass orders on Ext. P11 representation. 2. Ext. P12 is a sale notice published by the bank. Admittedly, the petitioner is a defaulter against whom proceedings were initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Submission of the petitioner is that following Ext. P10, petitioner submitted Ext. P11 request for settling the liability under the One Time Settlement Scheme. According to him without giving him a reply, Ext. P12 sale notice was published by the bank and therefore Ext. P12 is bad. 3. I am not in a position to accept this contention. It is true that after Ext. P11, its reply was given only on 28.2.2008, which W.P.(C) No. 6920 OF 2008 - 2 - according to the learned counsel for the petitioner was received by the petitioner only on 3.3.2008. Irrespective of whether this communication has been received or not, the fact remains that the petitioner is a defaulter. If that be so, the bank is entitled to continue the action that it has initiated. Even otherwise, now that the petitioner has received the letter dated 28.2.2008 in response to Ext.P11 and even during the course of the submissions in court petitioner has not expressed their willingness to discharge the liability. The delayed receipt of response to Ext.P11 has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Any inaction on the part of the bank in continuing the action that it has already initiated can only delay recovery of its dues. For these reasons, I do not find anything invalidating Ext. P12. 4. In so far as the 2nd prayer that Ext. P11 representation should be considered by the bank, now with the service of the order dated 28.2.2008 in reply to Ext.P11 representation, the second prayer has become infructuous. 5. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. W.P.(C) No. 6920 OF 2008 - 3 - However, inspite of it, since the anxiety of the bank is only to realise its dues and if the petitioner is really desirous of saving the property from a distress sale, I direct that the petitioner may remit an amount of Rs.10 lakhs on or before 7.3.2008 and if such remittance is made, further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P12 will be deferred by the bank and the petitioner will be permitted to repay the entire balance amount in six equal monthly instalments. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-