IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 25258 of 2007(F) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- SONIA SIBICHAN, KUDAKKANCHIRA HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM P.O., TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.MANHU SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CHIEF MANAGER, CANARA BANK, HOSPITAL ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA-682 301. 2. SUNITHA, W/O. VINOD, ASWATHY HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM, TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA - R1 SMT.K.A.ANGEL TREENA - R2 SMT.ARLISS TRENCY ANTONY - R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.25258/2007 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FURNISHED BY THE BANK. EXT.P2: COPY OF AGREEMENT DTD. 5/03/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF (PHOTO COPY) POSSESSION NOTICE. EXT.P4: COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY DTD. 7/07/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 10/07/2007 OF PETITIONER TO THE BANK. EXT.P6: .....DO...DO... DTD.11/08/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT FROM THE BANK OF INDIA FOR RS.1.5 LAKHS. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE RECEIPT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.25258 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. At the time of admission, an interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs within three weeks. Since the condition in the interim order was not complied with, this Court vacated the interim order on 31.10.2007. Now the petitioner comes up with another contention that the petitioner has subsequently paid some amounts and accepting that amount, the respondents may be directed to regularize the loan account. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent opposes the same. He would contend that the petitioner is guilty of serious violation of the loan agreement not only in paying the instalments in time but also in parting with possession of the vehicle hypothecated. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the petitioner has parted with the possession of the vehicle which W.P.(c)No.25258/07 2 was hypothecated to the bank. In such circumstances, I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to any indulgence in the matter in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.25258/07 3