IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 33938 of 2009(J) -------------------------------------- [CMP.NO.3405/2009 OF C.J.M. COURT.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- SIVANANDAN.P., AGED 43, S/O.NADARAJAN, UDAYA BHAVAN, KOTTUKALKONAM, KATTACHALKUZHI, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, SRI.V.VIJULAL. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- AUTHORISED OFFICER/SENIOR MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH. BY ADVS. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SRI.K.M.ANEESH, SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 33938 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the coercive steps being taken by the respondent Bank for realisation of the amount stated as due from the petitioner under a 'term loan', resorting to the remedy under the SARFAESI Act. When the matter came for consideration before this Court, coercive steps were intercepted on 25.11.2009, on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as specified. The condition was not satisfied and I.A. 452/2010 was filed whereby this Court modified the order on 14.01.2010, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on or before 25.01.2010 and the remaining Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 15.02.2010; making it clear that, if the same was not complied with, the benefit of the interim order would stand automatically recalled. Despite the above specific directions, the petitioner chose to plead the very same circumstances and filed I.A. 4491/2010 seeking for further enlargement of time to pay the remaining Rs.1,00,000/-. Though with much reluctance, this Court extended the time further, till 31.03.2010; inspite of which the petitioner has not satisfied the condition so far. This WP(C) No. 33938/2009 2 Court does not find it as a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction invoking the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed; however without prejudice to the rights and liberties available to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc