IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 37409 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. DR.JUSTIN JOSEPH, VADAKKEKUTTIANICKAL HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA, PIN-686 121, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. DR.SHEEBA JUSTIN, W/O.DR.JUSTIN JOSEPH, VADAKKEKUTTIANICKAL HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA, PIN-686 121, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., KOTTAYAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. ARUVITHURA BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER/ CHIEF MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, THEKKUMKAL BUILDINGS, T.B.ROAD, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. *ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED. 3. JOJOMON P.J., PLATHOTTAM HOUSE, POONJAR THEKKEKARA P.O., POONJAR, IDUKKI. ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA. NO.3131/2011 DTD. 23.2.2011. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.37409/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. P21(a):- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. P1(b):- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. P1(c):- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. P2:- COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DT.D 17.9.2010. P3:- COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DTD. 12.11.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 37409 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 7th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 initiated by the respondents for recovery of defaulted loan amounts from the petitioner. This court passed the following interim orders: “Confirmation of sale, if any, takes place on the basis of Ext. P3 notice shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month on condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- on or before 10.1.2011.” 15.12.2010. I.A. No. 484/2011 “The petitioner seeks extension of time stipulated for payment of Rs. 4 lakhs on the basis that he has already remitted a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and balance amount will be paid within 3 weeks from 10.1.2010. Counsel appearing for the respondent bank submitted that one item of property proclaimed under Ext. P3 is now sold for a sum of Rs. 37,19,500/- and opposes the prayer for extension on that premise. However, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to comply with the condition within a short period, so that the matter can be considered for disposal thereafter. Accordingly, time for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 3 lakhs is extended till 29.1.2011.” 12.1.2011. “Petitioner is directed to implead the auction bidder within three days.” W.P(C) No. 37409 of 2010 -: 2 :- “It is submitted that the stipulations contained in the interim order has already been complied with. Interim order is extended fora period of two weeks, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a further sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- within three weeks from today.” 1.2.2011. “Post on 23.2.2011. Interim order will continue till then.” 17.2.2011 “It is stated that the condition stipulated on 1.2.2011 has already been complied with. Meanwhile, the interim order will continue subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a further sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) within three weeks from today.” 23.2.2011. I.A.No. 5096/2011. Standing counsel opposed the prayer. However, time stipulated for payment of Rs. 4 lakhs as per interim order dated 23.2.2011 will stand extended till 16.4.2011. It is made clear that on the event of default the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps.” 30.3.2011. Admittedly, the petitioner has not complied with the directions in the interim orders. I do not think that such a petitioner can seek discretionary remedies of this court. In any event, it is settled law that the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 have to be W.P(C) No. 37409 of 2010 -: 3 :- challenged in an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly frowned upon the High Court entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/