IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 3913 of 2010(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ BOBY JACOB, AGED 36, S/O.THOMAS JACOB, CHETTIPUZHA HOUSE, AMALARIGI PO, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.SHENU RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. M/S.CANARA BANK, TEMPLE ROAD BRANCH, REP.BY BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTAYAM. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, TEMPLE ROAD, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN FOR R1 &2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.3913 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is before this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondents invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. It is brought to light on the part of the petitioner himself that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.21053 of 2009 which culminated in Ext.P3 judgment whereby the petitioner was permitted to clear the entire outstanding liability by eight monthly instalments, the first of which of Rs.10,00,000/- was to be effected on or before 31st August, 2009 to be followed by six similar instalments to be effected on or before 30th of the succeeding months, making it clear that the last instalment will constitute only such amount WPC(No)3913 of 2010 2 required to top up the figure, to clear the outstanding liability. It is the case of the petitioner that even though some payments were effected by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, the respondent Bank has furnished Ext.P4 statement of account in response to the requisition made by the petitioner in this regard, which however is not correct or proper, according to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has already remitted a sum of Rs.25 lakhs as borne out by Ext.P5 receipt dated 1.2.2010. In short, accuracy of the facts and figures as to the outstanding liability forms the pivotal point of dispute in the present writ petition. 3. The respondents have filed a statement projecting the actual facts and figures and also the liability as on 1.1.2010. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Bank also submits that the amount of Rs.25 lakhs paid by the petitioner as per Ext.P5 receipt on 1.2.2010 has also been given due credit to and the outstanding amount is Rs.26,51,199/- with future WPC(No)3913 of 2010 3 interest from 1.1.2010. 4. Going by the facts and figures, it cannot be a matter of dispute, that the matter has attained finality by virtue of Ext.P3 judgment. Petitioner is bound to honour the commitment, particularly in view of the benefit already extended to him by way of interference as per Ext.P3. There is absolutely no merit or bona fides in the present writ petition. No interference is called for. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that if any amount paid by the petitioner is not appropriately accounted or if there is any error or omission with regard to the calculations, the same shall be looked into and necessary corrections shall be effected by the respondents. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns