IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27749 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.S.SAJIMON, S/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 37, THOOMPUKAL HOUSE, KALLARA P.O., KOTTAYAM, FROM THOOMPUKAL HOUSE, KOTHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BANKING AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGION-III, CHIEF MANAGER (ADVANCES), ZONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 3. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE KOTHANALLOOR BRANCH, KOTTAYAM, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 4. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR. 5. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. MR.JINTO KURIAKOSE, S/O.LATE KURIAKOSE, PERMANENT ADDRESS: THOTTATHIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KOTHANALLOOR P.O., REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MOTHER CHINNAMMA KURIAKOSE. 7. JOSHY VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, MATTAKADU HOUSE, THAVALAPARA, ANAPPARA P.O., ANGAMALI. R1 BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI. T.P.M. IBRAHIM KHAN. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SC. R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 27749 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner had availed a loan from the 3rd respondent Bank for business purpose and another loan for house construction, creating security of stock-in-trade and also mortgage of immovable property. On default in repayment committed by the petitioner, the Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short the SARFAESI Act) against the secured assets. The petitioner had approached this court by challenging the proceedings more than one occasion and inspite of indulgence shown by this court to pay off the liability in installments, the petitioner could not comply with those conditions. The petitioner had also approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the proceedings where from he got conditional stay against the recovery. But the W.P.(C)No. 27749 of 2009 -2- condition imposed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal was also not complied with. Meantime property was sold under the proceedings by the Bank and the full amount was recovered from the purchaser. Subsequently the matter was settled with the Bank and the petitioner had arranged private sale of the property to another person. In view of the settlement the DRT had closed the matter on the basis of memo filed by the Bank and the documents of title were returned to the petitioner. The order in this regard was issued by the DRT in O.A. No.1/2008 & S.A. No.51/2008. 2. Complaint of the petitioner is that the Bank had illegally collected an amount of Rs.1,72,741/- as legal charges and amount of Rs.19,943/- as insurance charges from the petitioner, while settling the matter. According to the petitioner he came to know about the collection only after the payment. Further grievance of the petitioner is that while settling the amount the Bank had not permitted benefit under the 'One Time Settlement Scheme' to the petitioner. W.P.(C)No. 27749 of 2009 -3- 3. The dispute pertaining to the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was adjudicated before the DRT in S.A. No.51/2008. Further the suit filed by the Bank as O.A. No.1/2008 was also pending before that Tribunal. The settlement of account was effected during pendency of those proceedings before the DRT. The petitioner had willingly paid the amount claimed by the Bank towards legal charges and insurance charges without raising any protest at that point of time. However, the entire matter was settled thereafter before that Tribunal, by virtue of memo filed by the Bank endorsing satisfaction of the amounts due. On the basis of the said memo the matter was disposed of by the DRT with proper notice and knowledge of the petitioner. The contention now raised in this Writ Petition is virtually seeking a re-opening of the proceedings which were settled and culminated before the DRT. Further grievance raised regarding denial of benefit under One Time Settlement Scheme is also totally misconceived, and it is not a ground which could to be agitated after settlement W.P.(C)No. 27749 of 2009 -4- of the entire matter before the DRT. It is further noticed that the petitioner if aggrieved in any manner, have not chosen to approach the very same Tribunal raising any grievance with any review or other applications. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered opinion that the Writ Petition filed before this court is a total abuse of the jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence I am not at all inclined to interfere in this matter and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/