IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24688 of 2010(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SATHEESH.K.R, KRISHNA BHAVAN, MANIYAN MUKKU, ARAKANOOR.P.O., ELAMADU, AYOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- I.C.I.C.I BANK LTD., HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT VAIDYA COMMERCIAL ARCADE, 1ST FLOOR, R A P G DIVISION, ASRAMAM ROAD, KOLLAM – 691 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER. BY ADVS. SRI. K.K.M. SHERIFF, S.C, SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.24688 of 2010-I ---------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the steps taken by the respondent Bank for realisation of the amount stated as due from the petitioner, invoking the remedy under SARFAESI Act. 2. The course and events have been described by the petitioner reveal that the petitioner has already filed S.A. No.134 of 2010 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and an interim order was passed on 25.2.2010 in I.A.No.547 of 2010, granting ‘stay’ on condition. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner could not satisfy the condition and in the said circumstances, the Bank proceeded with further steps for causing the property to be sold in public auction, as notified in the ‘Mathrubhumi’ and ‘Malayala Manorama’ dailies dated 29.7.2010 and 30.7.2010 respectively, as borne by Ext.P7; which is sought to be interfered. 3. Heard the learned standing counsel for the Bank as well, who submits on instructions, that much leniency has been shown to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition for extension of time W.P(C) No.24688 of 2010-I 2 and the same was allowed. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had given a ‘post-dated’ cheque and that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. The assurance and undertaking given by the petitioner turned to be futile and the Bank has no other alternative, but to proceed with the steps for causing the property to be sold in public auction for realisation of the due amount. 4. After hearing both the sides, and also in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner has already resorted to the alternate remedy by filing S.A.No.134 of 2010, which is still pending consideration before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, this Court finds that this is not a fit case to call for interference, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that nothing has been expressed by this Court with regard to the merits of the case. This judgment also will not stand in the way of the petitioner from approaching the Bank for appropriate relief. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy//