IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28474 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- GEORGE MATHEW, 52 YEARS, S/O.T.V.MATHEW, MADATHIL KADAVIL HOUSE, MOOTHEDOM P.O., EDAKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT: --------------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA REP.BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-673 002. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR , SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.28474 of 2010-H ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T Proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is under challenge in this writ petition. Consequent to default committed in repayment of the amounts availed by the petitioner under a cash credit facility, immovable property which is the secured asset has been proceeded against. Invoking Section 14(1), the Bank had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the property. Ext.P4 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner, requesting the petitioner to handover possession of the property on or before 18.9.2010. 2. Going by the scheme of the statute, it is evident that an effective alternate remedy is provided for challenging actions contemplated under Section 13(4). Approach made by the petitioner without resorting to any such remedy could not be W.P(C) No.28474 of 2010-H 2 entertained in this writ petition. However, as a gesture of indulgence, when the writ petition came up for admission this Court stayed dispossession of the petitioner subject to condition of payment of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The above order was issued on 15.9.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.13672 of 2010 seeking extension of time for compliance of the conditions. Eventhough time was extended till 15.10.2010, the petitioner has not complied with the said condition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a probable buyer available for purchasing the property and the petitioner had already entered into an agreement for sale of the property. Hence he seeks time for a period of ten months to pay off the liability. 3. It is evident that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act is at its fag end. It is further noticed that the petitioner was not in a position to take benefit of the situation by complying with the interim order issued by this Court. Under such circumstances, it is not proper for this Court to put the Bank to prejudice by indefinitely keeping the proceedings under stay. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the Bank is proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, sale of a W.P(C) No.28474 of 2010-H 3 portion of the property will serve recovery of the amounts due, so that the residence of the petitioner can be saved from being dispossessed and sold. It is for the petitioner to approach the respondent Bank with such a request and it is for the Bank to consider the same, on the basis of feasibility of any such course. 4. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner invoking jurisdiction under Section 17(1), if permissible under law. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.28474 of 2010-H 4