IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 4210 of 2008(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- M/S.GEO AQUATIC PRODUCTS PVT.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR K.G.FELIX, VELUTHULLY ROAD, CHANDIROOR, ALAPPUZHA - 688 547. BY ADV. SMT.S.AMINA SRI.V.V.PADMANABHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. FEDERAL BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, AROOR BRANCH, PIN - 688 534. 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA - 688 524. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA TALUK, PIN - 688 524. 4. EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION, HDFC BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 016. R1 BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.4210/2008 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DTD. 3/07/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 9/10/2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 19/10/2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 29/12/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TOT HE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 16/01/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 23/01/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DTD. 16/03/2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE PROPOSAL BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 23/03/2007. EXT.P8(A): COPY OF THE COUNTER SIGNED OF THE PAYMENT SLIP EVIDENCING REMITTANCE RS.5,00,000/- BY THE PETITIONERS DTD. 23/03/2007. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 14/05/2007. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER DTD. 23/05/2007. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 17/08/2007. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER DTD. 20/08/2007. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 13/09/2007. Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.4210/2008 A EXT.P14: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 18/09/2007. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 25/09/2007. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE COUNTER SIGNED PAYMENT SLIP EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF RS.10,00,000/- DTD. 28/09/2007. EXT.P16(A): COPY OF THE COUNTER SIGNED PAYMENT SLIP EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF RS.5,00,000/- DTD. 15/10/2007. EXT.P16(B): COPY OF THE COUNTER SIGNED PAYMENT SLIP EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF RS.5,00,000/- DTD. 13/11/2007. EXT.P16(C): COPY OF THE COUNTER SIGNED PAYMENT SLIP EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF RS.5,00,000/- DTD. 29/12/2007. EXT.P16(D): COPY OF THE COUNTER SIGNED PAYMENT SLIP EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF RS.5,00,000/- DTD. 18/01/2008. EXT.P16(E): COPY OF THE COUNTER SIGNED PAYMENT SLIP EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF RS.5,00,000/- DTD. 21/01/2008. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 23/01/2008. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 23/01/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 4210 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this Writ Petition is against Ext.P17, an order passed by the District Magistrate exercising power under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent not to pursue or implement Ext.P2 proceedings. 2. The ground on which Ext.P17 is challenged is that the said order has been passed without notice to the petitioner. There is no requirement either statutory or as part of the principles of natural justice, that when the District Magistrate considers the application under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, a defaulter should be heard. If that be so, the challenge against Ext.P17 fails. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner who had availed substantial financial assistance from the Bank is a defaulter. Although there is a dispute about the appropriation of the funds made available by the 4th respondent, the petitioner also does not dispute that much amount is in arrears. If that be so, the proceedings initiated WPC No. 4210 OF 2008 2 against the petitioner cannot be successfully challenged. As regards the amounts paid by the 4th respondent, according to the 4th respondent, such payment is only in the nature of reimbursable advance which is to be repaid by the Bank and cannot be appropriated towards the liability of the petitioner. Therefore, the liability of the petitioner to pay the entire amount due to the bank remains unaltered even in spite of the payment by the 4th respondent. 3. Petitioner prays that the bank may be directed to give time to enable the petitioner to liquidate the liability that is due. This request made by the petitioner is countered by the counsel for the bank by submitting that the bank had already given the petitioner almost two years time and that, apart from making requests for time and offers settlement of the liability, the petitioner has not settled the liability. Since the factual position is as above, this Court will not be justified in compelling an unwilling bank to defer proceedings and give more time to a confessed defaulter. 4. Petitioner also prays that the bank may be directed to proceed against properties other than the factory building. So WPC No. 4210 OF 2008 3 long as the petitioner has no dispute that the items of properties including the factory building are mortgaged properties; it is always open to the bank to proceed against any one or more of the properties mortgaged for realising the dues. Having examined the contentions raised by the petitioner, I do not find any merit in any of the grounds raise, the writ petition is to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ttb WPC No. 4210 OF 2008 4