IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4864 of 2010(U) ------------------------- SA.377/2009 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM CMP.1153/2009 of C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SMT. HALEEMA R., W/O.HASSANAR, MPM HOUSE, T.C. 18/2108,MUDAVANMUGAL, POOJAPURA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 12. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP SMT.N.G.SINDHU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED., REGIONAL OFFICE, HOTEL SAFA INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, P.N.NO.473, MLAYALA MANORAMA ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER. 2. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) ADV. SRI.P.R.MILTON ADV. SRI.K.J.CHACKOCHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P(C) No. 4864 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 17th February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed a cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. One crore form the State Bank of Travancore in the year 2004 and thereafter, another housing loan of Rs. 30 lakhs from the first respondent Bank. In furtherance to the negotiations in between the parties, the cash credit facility was taken over by the first respondent Bank and the petitioner was effecting repayments under both the loans together. However in the course of time, the petitioner turned to be a defaulter, under which circumstance, the first respondent proceeded with coercive steps under the SARFAESI Act, which was sought to be intercepted by filing W.P.(C) No.9707 of 2007, mainly contending that the Bank was not right in declaring the account of the petitioner as 'NPA' in view of non-satisfaction of the requirement as contemplated under section 31(j) of the Act , which stipulates that the amount due should be a minimum of 20% of the principal amount and interest thereon. 2. The above Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court, W.P(C) No. 4864 OF 2010 2 declining interference, referring to the alternate remedy available to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed S.A.No. 35 of 2007 before the DRT and moved an interlocutory application for stay. Since the application for stay was not considered by the Tribunal, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P(C)No.17332 of 2007, which was disposed of, directing the DRT to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petition for stay as well as the appeal, making it clear that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the house till 29.06.2007. 3. Pursuant to the above verdict, the DRT considered the appeal and an order was passed on 28.06.2007 holding that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was quite 'premature' in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Mardia Chermicals Limited vs. Union of India (2004 (4) SCC 311) and also based on the endorsement stated as made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the SA could be dismissed in he above circumstances. It was thereafter, the petitioner chose to approach this Court again by filing W.P.(C) No.20203 of 2007 raising many a ground, also disowning the W.P(C) No. 4864 OF 2010 3 correctness and justifiability of the endorsement stated as made by the then Counsel in the SA. After considering the matter at length, the above Writ Petition was dismissed as per Ext. P3 judgment dated 20.07.2009, observing that the petitioner, if aggrieved in any manner, was at liberty to approach the statutory authority by filing appropriate proceedings in this regard. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such remedy, the coercive steps stated as being pursued were intercepted, on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. One lakh within the time specified therein. 4. It appears from the proceedings filed before this Court that the petitioner has approached the DRT by filing S.A.No. 377 of 2009, wherein Ext. P4 order was passed on 01.10.2009 directing to maintain 'status quo'. Subsequently, the said order was varied as per Ext.P5 dated 26.11.2009, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 'Thirty Five lakhs' on or before 31.12.2009. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner did not satisfy the said condition imposed by the DRT. In the meanwhile, because of non-compliance of the direction in Ext. P5, the respondent Bank W.P(C) No. 4864 OF 2010 4 had proceeded with further steps, by moving the concerned C.J.M. under Section 14(1) of the Act, which led to Ext. P6 order directing to take delivery of the property on 18.02.2010 and to report compliance on the next day. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext. P6 order since he has already filed Ext.P8 representation before the DRT seeking for further extension of time . Taking note of the sequence of events, this Court does not find any merit or bonafides in the course and conduct being pursued by the petitioner, which cannot but be deprecated in the strongest possible words . 7. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that even at this extent of time, the Bank, as a gesture of goodwill, is ready and willing to provide one week's time to the petitioner to satisfy the condition imposed vide Ext.P5 order and on satisfying the said requirement, taking note of the specific assurance made by the petitioner in the Writ Petition as well as in Ext. P8 representation filed before the Tribunal that the entire liability will be wiped out before 31.03.2010, further proceedings could be caused to be kept in abeyance till such time. W.P(C) No. 4864 OF 2010 5 8. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to satisfy the condition imposed by the DRT vide Ext. P5, depositing a sum of Rs. Thirty Five lakhs within one week from today. On satisfying the said requirement, all further proceedings, including those pursuant to Ext. P6, shall be kept in abeyance till 31.03.2010 , subject to the condition that the entire outstanding liability under the loan transaction is cleared by the petitioner on or before 31.03.2010. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not honour the commitment as above , i.e., if there is any failure to satisfy Rs. 'Thirty Five lakhs' within one week or the balance amount on or before 31.03.2010, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk