IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23199 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA.1607/2009 IN SA.374/2009 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 33, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, ELY COTTAGE, KUNNATHUKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, ZONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SARC, S.B.I., CHENNAI. 3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, SARC, SBI, L.M.S. COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. S.C. SRI. K.K. CHANDRAN PILLAI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. = = = = = = = = == = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 23199 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner, who is the Manager of a Lower Primary School, which is stated as an aided school, had at the first instance approached this Court challenging the proceedings initiated by the Bank to realise the amount granted to him by way of loan, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets ad Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act). 2. The petitioner had availed a loan from the Bank creating security interest over the property in question. In the course of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, when the petitioner found to be a defaulter, he had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) 18447 of 2008. After hearing the rival submissions, the matter was disposed of by this Court on 25.7.2008 as per Ext.P3 judgment whereby the petitioner was permitted to satisfy the liability in a phased manner. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to satisfy a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs on the next day of the judgment, then a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs within six weeks and thereafter, to satisfy the balance amount by way of six equal monthly instlments beginning from WP(C) 23199/2010 2 1.11.2008. It was made clear that, if the party committed any default in effecting payment, the respondents could be free to take further steps for realisation of the entire amount due. 3. Subsequently, petitioner filed I.A. 129/2009 for enlargement of time, which was allowed as per Ext.P5 order dated 5.3.2009, observing that petitioner had undertaken before this Court to clear off the entire due on or before 15.3.2009. Acting upon the said submission made on the part of the petitioner, purely as a matter of indulgence, time was enlarged by this Court up to 15.3.2009 so as to enable the petitioner to make payment with a direction to the respondents to accept the same. 4. Learned counsel for the Bank submits, on instruction, that there was no element of bona fides on the part of the petitioner, who was a chronic defaulter from the beginning itself. It is stated that the petitioner, without satisfying the liability as ordered to be cleared by this Court, even within the extended time, sought to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A. 374/2009 wherein an interim order of 'status-quo' was passed as per Ext.P8 dated 3.8.2009. Later, Ext.P9 interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs on or before 31.3.2010 and a further sum of rs. 10 lakhs on or before 30.4.2010. It is stated that the petitioner satisfied the first instalment of Rs. 10 lakhs; but the WP(C) 23199/2010 3 second instalment was never satisfied. As borne out from Ext.P9 order itself, the course and events were taken note of by the Tribunal, as contained in Paragraphs 3 and 4. It was only to grant one more opportunity to have the matter settled amicably, that the petitioner was granted further time by directing to remit Rs. 10 lakhs on or before 31.3.2010 and a further sum of Rs. 10 lakhs on or before 30.4.2010. It was also observed that, if default was committed by the petitioner, the respondents were at liberty to proceed with any further action as contemplated under law. While making the above observation, the claim of the petitioner to consider his OTS proposal was also directed to be considered and decided on merits. Subsequently, after several adjournments, petitioner filed I.A. 1497/2010 for enlargement of time in respect of the second instalment, which ought to have been satisfied on or before 30.4.2010. The I.A. was considered by the Tribunal and Ext.P15 order was passed thereon on 1.6.2010. It has been observed that petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of SME - OTS scheme and that there was no scheme of OTS as on that date. However, being an educational institution, the Tribunal was inclined to show some more leniency and accordingly, observing that it was only as a small reprieve, the petitioner was directed to comply with the second 'conditional payment' and to remit Rs. 10 lakhs, thus granting a further adjournment. In WP(C) 23199/2010 4 spite of this, the liability stands still to be cleared and the petitioner, taking a 'U' turn has approached this Court again with this writ petition, seeking almost similar relief. 5. The course and conduct pursued by the petitioner without any regard to the various directions issued by this Court, obtaining favourbale orders and thereafter approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal securing undue favours and even thereafter,turning back to this Court by filing this writ petition can't but be deprecated. This Court does not find any tenable ground to call for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten ten thousand only). P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/-