IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 7751 of 2008(W) PETITIONER: SMT.SARASWATHY AMMAL,W/O.LATE N.KESAVA KURUP, AGED 65, RESIDING AT T.C.28/993 JYOTHI BHAVAN, SREEKANTESWARAM FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, HOUSING BOARD, BUILDING PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI. 4. UNION BANK OF INDIA M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 5. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNION BANK OF INDIA, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SUKUMARAN NAIR,S/O. P.R.K.NAIR HINDU, AGED 45,RESIDING AT TC NO.4/1250, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. A.S.P. KURUP, SC FOR UBI ASST. SG, SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 7751 OF 2008 W ==================== Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the challenge has been raised against the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. The auction was scheduled on 7/3/2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they have remitted Rs.8 lakhs with the Bank and the auction was adjourned. It is also submitted that the petitioner has undertaken to pay the balance amount and according the petitioner the balance due is only Rs.1,30,000/- whereas according to the Bank it is more than Rs.2 lakhs. The dispute appears to be on the addition of the expenses and costs incurred by the Bank towards her liability. 2. In my view, the dispute now raised on the quantum of liability that is due from the petitioner is not one which can be resolved by this court in a proceedings under Article 226 of the WPC 7751/08 :2 : Constitution of India. It is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies. With that liberty, writ petition is closed. Petitioner apprehends that even if entire payment is made, the documents deposited by the petitioner will not be returned. I see no justification for this apprehension. If the petitioner discharges the liability to the Bank, there cannot be any reason for the Bank to withhold the documents. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp