IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 13592 of 2008(R) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. M/S. THE KONCHERRY COIR FACTORIES, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTRATION NO. 1282 DATED 28.4.1986, MAYITHARA POST, PIN - 688 539, CHERTHALA, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER DR.K.S.SUBHASH. 2. DR.K.S. SUBHASH, AGED 50, S/O. LATE C.V.SUSEELAN, PARTNER, M/S.THE KONCHERRY INTERNATIONAL AND M/S. IMPERIAL COIR YARN TRADING COMPANY, MAYITHARA POST, PIN - 688 539, CHERTHALA, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.C.ELDHO RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE OF SBT, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, S.M.E.BRANCH, VAZHICHERRY, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, S.M.E.BRANCH, VAZHICHERRY, ALAPPUZHA. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.SATHISH NINAN, MR.SANTHOSH MATHEW. R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No.13592 of 2008 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T The coercive proceedings pursued by the bank under the SARFAESI Act, for realization of the amount due from the petitioner are subjected to challenge in this writ petition. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 30.1.2009, coercive steps were intercepted on condition that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs on or before the 15th of March 2009 and another 2 lakhs before the 30th of April 2009, making it clear that if there was any default in depositing the above amount, the benefit of the interim order would stand recalled automatically. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that, the petitioner has not complied with the condition. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find it as a fit case to call for interference under Article 226 excising discretionary W.P.(C).No.13592 of 2008 2 jurisdiction. Accordingly, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy available under the 'Act'. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE nl