IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 26971 of 2010 (V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.P.ANTONY,AGED 38 YEARS,S/O.PAPPU, KAITHAMANA HOUSE, BOLGATTY PALACE, MULAVUKKADU.P.O, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE (PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER ERNAKULAM BRANCH, KANNANKERI ESTATE, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2. CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM BRANCH, KANNANKERI ESTATE, SHANMUGHAM ROAD,ERNAKULAM-682 031. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-1. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JOYI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.26971 of 2010-V ---------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is under challenge in this writ petition. Contention of the petitioner is that on receipt of Ext.P3 notice, the petitioner had approached the first respondents offering to repay the defaulted instalments. But respondents 1 and 2 demanded payment of the entire amount. It is also mentioned that the first respondent had threatened the petitioner that orders will be issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, if the petitioner is not remitting the amount before 31.8.2010. 2. Considering the effective remedy available to the petitioner against Ext.P3 notice, as well as against any further actions which will be pursued by the respondents, this Court is not justified in entertaining this writ petition. However, as a gesture of indulgence the petitioner was directed to remit a sum of W.P(C) No.26971 of 2010-V 2 Rs.1,00,000/- in order to show his bonafides. The order imposing such a condition was issued on 31.8.2010, insisting payment within 10 days. When the matter was posted for further consideration on 15.9.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he could make payment of only an amount of Rs.25,000/- and sought further time for payment of the balance. As a last chance, the petitioner was permitted two weeks time for remitting the balance amount, making it clear that on failure the writ petition will be dismissed. Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the condition has not so far been complied with. 3. Under the above circumstances, I am not inclined to keep pending this writ petition, for permitting the petitioner to clear off the liability. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the balance outstanding with respect to the defaulted instalments is Rs.2,12,000/-. It is also mentioned that the respondents are willing to permit the petitioner to regularise the account provided the entire defaulted amount is paid in lump sum. 4. Under the above circumstances, while dismissing the writ W.P(C) No.26971 of 2010-V 3 petition, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondents seeking regularisation on the basis of the offer made. 5. It is also made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not prevent the petitioner from invoking any statutory remedy against the proceedings, if available under law. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.26971 of 2010-V 4