IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 8513 of 2011(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. ASWATHY PAPER MART, REP. BY PROPRIETOR, C.A USHA KUMARI, MARAZHATHU BUILDING, SOUTH OF DEVI TEMPLE, A.C. ROAD, CHERTHALA.P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN, SMT.RAJI VINCENT. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA, GANDHI BAZAR, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY ITS MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN - 688 524. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), S.C, S.B.I. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.8513/2011-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 30/08/2010. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 27/11/2010. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 01/12/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 31/12/2010. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DTD. 05/03/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 8513 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging proceedings initiated by the respondent under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the Act”), for recovery of the loan amounts defaulted by the petitioner. 2. This Court passed following interim orders on 4.4.2011 and 25.5.2011 as follows: 4.4.2011: “SC for respondent bank is directed to get instructions and to file statement, if so advised. Meanwhile, further steps for dispossession and sale of the property shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 2 months, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) on or before 30.4.2011 and a further sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) on or before 20.5.2011. Post on 25.5.2011. 25.5.2011: “It is stated that the first instalment of Rs. 75,000/- stipulated in the interim order dated 4.4.2011 has already been paid. Further it is submitted that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was remitted on yesterday. In this application, the petitioner seeks extension of time for a period of 2 months for payment of the balance amount. Prayer is opposed by the respondent. However, considering the fats and circumstances, time stipulated for payment of the second instalment is extended till 18.6.2011. Post on 21.6.2011. Needless to say that the interim order will continue till then.” w.p.c.8513/11 2 3. It is now admitted before me that the petitioner has not paid any further amounts as directed. It is settled law that proceedings under the Act have to be challenged in an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Supreme Court has repeatedly frowned upon the High Courts entertaining writ petitions challenging proceedings under the Act. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the proceedings appropriately. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge