IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 5800 of 2011(Y) --------- ------------------------- CMP.3365/2010 of C.J.M.,KOTTAYAM ............................. .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SABU LUKOSE, S/O.LUKOSE, AGED 50 YEARS, PUNNAKKATTU MYALIL HOUSE, PERUMTHURUTHU P.O., KALLARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER (DEPUTY ZONAL MANAGER), CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001. 2. THE MANAGER, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STU WP(C).No. 5800 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF NOTICE DTD 25/01/2007 ISSUED BY THE BANK. P2 : COPY OF CMP NO. 3365/2010 FILED BY THE BANK BEFORE THE CJM COURT, KOTTAYAM. P3 : COPY OF RECEIPTS DTD 22/02/2011, 23/03/2011 & 09/04/2011. P4 : COPY OF NOTICE DTD 30/09/2011 WITH APPLICATION DTD 26/09/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE. STU S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5800 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act initiated by the respondents for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the respondents. This Court passed an order dated 24.2.2011, which reads as follows: “SC for respondent is directed to get instructions. Meanwhile petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property, if not already dispossessed, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) within two weeks from today. Post after two weeks.” The petitioner filed I.A.No.5235/11, in which this Court passed the following interim order: “Extension sought for is opposed by the respondent bank. However, on the basis that the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), time for payment of the balance amount is extended, permitting the petitioner to make payment of a further sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on or before 31.3.2011 and the balance Rs.50,000/- on or before 11.4.2011. Post on 12.4.2011.” W.P.(C)No.5800/11 2 Again this Court passed an interim order on 12.4.2011, which reads as follows: “No representation for the respondents. It is submitted by the petitoner that the condition has alaready been complied with. Interim stay is extended for a period of 2 months subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a further sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) within 6 weeks from today.” The petitioner has now filed I.A.No.17452/11 seeking extension of time to pay the amounts. Although the petitioner has complied with the 1st order, the petitioner has not complied with the 2nd order. The petitioner had more than sufficient time extending to almost seven months for payment. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant further time and exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, who would not comply with the orders of this Court. Even otherwise, it is settled law that the remedy of a person aggrieved by proceedings under the Act is to file an application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.5800/11 3 W.P.(C)No.5800/11 4