IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 30748 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.O. THOMAS, S/O OUSEPH, PROPRIETOR, KALLOKADAN MODERN RICE MILL, OKKAL P.O., KALADY. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAM ZACHARIAH SRI.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR SRI.LAJI SAM ZACHARIAH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R3 ADV. SRI.K.S.DILIP FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.30748 of 2008-I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.This writ petition was filed on the plea that the account which has been treated as a non- performing asset and was classified in terms of the RBI norms, was not one available for such classification and the resultant action under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is without jurisdiction. 2.Later, I.A.14626/2008 was allowed without prejudice to the contentions of the bank, thereby permitting the petitioner to urge a further plea by way of amendment, that the impugned dispossession is invalid on account of infraction of the statutory rule requiring publication of WP(C)30748/08 -: 2 :- notice in English and in vernacular languages in newspapers. 3.While granting interim relief at the time of admission, on 3-11-2008, the petitioner was required to deposit an amount of Rs.10 lakhs within a period of two weeks as against the total amount of more than Rs.1.25 crores due to the bank. The plea of the petitioner is that the property is worth more than Rs.13 crores. Yet, not a pie was paid in terms of that interim order. I.A.No.14670/08 was filed seeking enlargement of time to make deposit. The ground projected was that had he gone to the DRT, the time for instituting the securitisation application in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act would not have run out by now. That plea was repelled as per the order dated 18-11- 2008 on I.A.No.14670/08 and a last opportunity was granted by extending the period by another week. Yet, no remittance is made. WP(C)30748/08 -: 3 :- 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the securitisation application was argued before the DRT and the Tribunal appears to have been persuaded by the applicant, to grant a decision in his favour, however that the Tribunal was reluctant to issue any interlocutory order because of the pendency of this writ petition and the interim order issued by this Court. Obviously, the Tribunal could not have issued any interlocutory order on the face of the interdictory order, as issued by this Court, the superior authority, that governs the parties. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in not issuing any interim order. 5.Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner, after making an attempt to canvass an argument on the basis of Rule 8 of the Security Enforcement Rules, ultimately, sought an opportunity to have the matter decided on merits by the DRT rather than face the consequences of a final verdict being handed down by this Court on the merits of WP(C)30748/08 -: 4 :- the contentions in law. It would not be much of an effort to decide on the plea raised by the petitioner but in deference to the learned counsel, I propose to desist from answering the legal issues raised. 6.The question now would be as to whether the petitioner has to be permitted to leave without remitting the amounts covered by the interim order after having enjoyed that interim order from 3-11-2008. I am clear in my mind that he is not to be. Under such circumstances, it is ordered that unless the petitioner remits the amount of Rs.10 lacks on or before 28-11-2008, the DRT shall not pass any interlocutory order in favour of the petitioner. It is clarified that this condition would not, in any manner, stand in the way of the Tribunal in its decision-making process that may lead to the final order on the securitisation application. All other issues are left open to be WP(C)30748/08 -: 5 :- agitated before the DRT. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/251108