IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 26637 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.S. RAMABHADRAN, 44 YEARS, S/O. G. PARAMESHWARAN NAIR, INDEEVARAM, VAYYATTU, VENJARAMMOODU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, (REGIONAL MANAGER), ZONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THEMBAMOODU BRANCH, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, CENTRAL OFFICER, MUMBAI - 400 001. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R4 SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC, SBI FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.26637/08 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MASTER CIRCULAR ON ASSET CLASSIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.26637 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. An interim order was issued at the stage of admission, on 3.9.2008, granting stay on condition of payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. That was not complied with. Taking into consideration a further interlocutory application, the order of stay was permitted to continue on condition of payment of an amount of Rs.50,000/-. It was also directed that the petitioner shall come on record filing an affidavit, disclosing the house number of the house allegedly constructed utilising the loan. Thereafter, on repeated postings, all that the learned counsel for the petitioner states is that he was hunting for his client. It also needs to be recalled that during the proceedings, the Bank had even offered that the petitioner could regularise the transaction by paying the entire defaulted EMIs with accrued interest, penalty etc. or go for an instalment facility, whichever he may chose. There is no response even to this from the petitioner. I do not find it WPC.26637/08 Page numbers necessary for this Court to retain this writ petition any further in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, hence, dismissed without entering on merits. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.