IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5884 of 2011(I) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T.K.NAGENDRAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KUTTY, VISHALA BHAVAN, P.D.ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON 01/03/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 5884 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 sale notice issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repayment of a loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, steps against the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was initiated. As per Ext.P3 the property now stands proclaimed for sale on 5.3.2011. 2. It is noticed that the when proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated, during the year 2007, the petitioner had approached this court by filing WP(C).No.3773/2008. This court had shown indulgence in permitting the petitioner to regularise the account by paying an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. Eventhough the said amount was paid the petitioner thereafter had defaulted payment of the regular monthly instalments and the amount outstanding in the loan account has been accrued to a sum of Rs.5,79,185/-. Thereafter when coercive steps were WP(C).5884/2011 2 initiated, the petitioner again filed another writ petition as WP (C).No.28288/2009 concealing about filing of the first writ petition on an earlier occasion. However, on the basis of specific undertaking made by the petitioner that the entire amounts overdue will be paid immediately and that the future monthly instalments will be remitted without any default, one more chance was given and further indulgence was shown in permitting the petitioner to regularise the account. Dispossession and sale of the property was stayed, permitting the petitioner to make payment of the entire amounts in default, on or before 31.1.2010. It is mentioned that, inspite of indulgence shown as above by virtue of Ext.P1 judgment, the amounts in default was not paid. Instead the petitioner had filed an application under section 17(1) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The said Tribunal had granted an interim order against dispossession and sale of the property subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. The petitioner had also failed to comply with the said condition. 3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, considering the repeated abuse of the process of law, I am not at all inclined to entertain this writ petition. From the conduct of WP(C).5884/2011 3 the petitioner it is evident that he is abusing the process of this court without any bonafides. 4. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed with a compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the respondent. The respondent can recover the said amount from the petitioner by adding it to the outstanding liability in the loan account, apart from the expenses already incurred by the respondent for conducting this case before this court. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).5884/2011 4