IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 15944 of 2009(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- VINEETHA MANOJ, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.MANOJ G.PILLAI, C.C.IV/2165(5), MANOJ BHAVAN, KURAVANKONAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.MATHEW ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. FEDERAL BANK LTD., REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, L.I.C.BRANCH, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORIZED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.303, 3RD FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWER, M.G.ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.1503 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.15944/2009 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OFTHE NOTICE DTD.2/09/2008 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION/REPRESENTATION DTD. 15/10/2008 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S OFFICE. P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 3/04/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ------------------------------- W.P(C) No.15944/2009 & 1503/2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed W.P(C) No.15944 of 2009 challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the machinery under the SARFAESI Act. The above steps were intercepted as per interim order dated 9.6.2009 on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh within one month. It was reported that the said condition was not complied with by the petitioner and in the meanwhile the interim order got expired. In the said circumstances, the petitioner filed I.A.No.8689 of 2009 in W.P(C) No.15944 of 2009; whereupon the interim order was revived and extended till 31.8.2009, on condition that the petitioner satisfied the requirement already stipulated by this Court. 2. It is during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the petitioner has again come up before this Court by filing W.P(C) No.1503 of 2010 projecting the very same cause of action; where notice on admission was ordered to the respondents. Taking note of the persuasive submission made from the part of the petitioner projecting the ailment of her husband and also the fact that, it was a 'housing loan', further coercive steps were intercepted for a period W.P(C) No.15944/2009 & 1503/2010 2 of one month as per interim order dated 15.1.2010, on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- within two weeks and another Rs.50,000/- within two weeks thereafter; giving effect to the interim order dated 9.6.2009 passed by this Court earlier in the connected case. 3. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent bank in both the cases submits on instructions, that the petitioner has never chosen to comply with the direction given by this Court by effecting the deposit and that no further leniency is warranted under any circumstances. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for some more time to satisfy the condition as the last chance. This Court does not find it necessary to keep the Writ Petitions pending for the reason that the petitioner has proved herself that she is not eager to satisfy the commitment under any circumstances, despite the chances and opportunity given so far. In the above circumstances, interference is declined and both the Writ Petitions are dismissed, however without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the proceedings in accordance with law, by resorting to other alternate remedy, in accordance with law. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE //True Copy//