IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20179 of 2011(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SREEKUMAR.R.MENON, MEENA MADHAVAN, ELAMAKKARA, COCHIN-682 026 BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, 40/947, II FLOOR, R.S.BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 011. 2. CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, COMMERCIAL BRANCH, ERNAKULAM-682 015. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.R.S.KALKURA,SC, SBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.20179/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3/6/2011 P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3/6/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 20179 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, initiated by the respondents for recovery of loan amounts defaulted by the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier participated in the D.R.T. Adalath, in which, a settlement was arrived at. But the petitioner did not pay the amounts as per the settlement. Therefore, the respondents initiated further coercive recovery proceedings for recovery of the amounts due by sale of the mortgaged properties. That is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner does not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioner only seeks some time to pay off the amounts due. 2. This is opposed by the learned counsel for the bank. He submits that since the petitioner has not complied with the conditions pursuant to the settlement in the adalath, the petitioner is not eligible for the benefit of the settlement and now the petitioner has to pay the entire amounts due. He also opposes the prayer for time to pay off the amounts. 3. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: w.p.c.20179/11 2 As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the bank, since the petitioner has not complied with the conditions of the settlement, the petitioner cannot have the benefit of the settlement any more. He will have to pay the entire amounts due without regard to the settlement. That amount the petitioner shall pay within the three months from today. To enable the petitioner to pay the same, the respondents shall keep further proceedings for sale of the properties in abeyance. If the petitioner fails to pay the amounts due within the three months as directed above, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge