IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 6994 of 2008(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- VISWAMBHARAN ,S/O.MADHAVAN,AGED 52 RESIDING AT ANANDEESWARAM,ARYANADU P.O. ARYABNADU VILLAGE, PROPRIETOR,VAYALVARAM BRICKS INDUSTRIES, ANANDEESWARAM, ARYANADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. CANARA BANK, PARANDODE BRANCH REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK PARANDODE BRANCH, ARYANADU VILLAGE NEDUMANGADU TALUK,TRIVANDRUM. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER,CANARA BANK, PARANDODE BRANCH ARYANADU VILLAGE NEDUMANGADU TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ROHINI BUILDING, THAKARAPARAMBU ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION STATE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC FOR BANK ADV. SRI. K.P. HARISH, SC, R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 6994 OF 2008 G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st April, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges the securitization proceedings initiated by the bank against the industrial unit of the petitioner set up for manufacturing bricks and also against the mortgaged properties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the unit was sponsored by the 4th respondent and he had availed of Rs. 4 lakhs from the respondent bank. 2. It is stated that subsequent to the establishment of the unit there was a fire accident in which loss of Rs.4 lakhs was suffered. Though the unit was insured with the 3rd respondent for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs, the bank should have raised the claim for insurance. It is stated that apart from these lapses the bank also did not adjust the subsidy amount that was extended by the 4th respondent. 3. Petitioner submits that he has already moved Ext. P7 complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, W.P.(C) No. 6994 OF 2008 -2- Trivandrum by filing O.P. No. 418 of 2003 and that the said complaint is pending. It is stated that in the meanwhile, the bank is initiating securitization proceedings and therefore this writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate orders. 4. One of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the failure of the bank to credit the subsidy received from the 4th respondent. On facts this submission can be seen to be incorrect and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the bank would submit that this allegation is incorrect. He would invite my attention to Ext. P8 and the credits that were given to the two accounts, on 24.6.2003 for a sum of Rs.36,966/- and Rs.1,38,034/- respectively. Therefore, the allegation that the bank did not credit the payment to the subsidy is incorrect. 5. In so far as the claim for insurance is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the matter is pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It is true that the petitioner had subscribed a polity with the 3rd respondent and unsatisfied with the amount awarded the petitioner has filed the aforesaid W.P.(C) No. 6994 OF 2008 -3- complaint. According to the petitioner, the bank should await for the disposal of the complaint by the CDRF. 6. I am not in a position to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has not been able to show me any provision of contract or statute obliging the bank to await for initiating proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 until the insurance dispute is decided finally by the CDRF. If that be so, when amount is due, the bank is entitled to proceed in the matter. 7. Bank also has a case and it is not in dispute, that when default was committed the bank had filed a suit against the petitioner which was settled before the Adalath and that at that time, the bank had given concessions to the petitioner. It is also the case of the bank that in terms of the agreement before the Adalath, the petitioner ought to have repaid the amount due in monthly instalment of Rs.10,000/- which has not been paid by the petitioner. Though the petitioner explains this default by contending that at the time when the suit was settled before the W.P.(C) No. 6994 OF 2008 -4- Adalath he was laid up, that is not an answer to justify the default committed. 8. I do not find my way to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner especially when the proceedings under the Act have reached the stage of sale notice and the matter now stands posted to 3.4.2008 for auction of the mortgaged assets. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-