IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 11612 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PREMALATHA,AGED 63 YEARS, W/O.LATE E.K.SREENIVASAN, R/AT 'DIVYA',MAKKADA P.O,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.PIN- 671 316 BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SRI.S.K.SAJU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., S.M.STREET BRANCH, PARCO TOWER, P.M.TAJ ROAD, KOZHIKODE.PIN- 673 001. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.11612/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 13/11/2010. P2 COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT DATED 04/04/2011. P3 COPY OF THE WEDDING INVITATION CARD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 11612 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 initiated by the respondent for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the respondent. 2. This Court passed an interim order on 8.4.2011, which reads as follows: “Urgent notice on admission to respondent by speed post returnable within one week. Meanwhile, there will be an interim stay against dispossession and sale of the property subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- (seven lakhs) on or before 20.5.11.” The petitioner has not paid that amount. The petitioner has not filed an application for extension of time also. It is settled law that proceedings under the Act have to be challenged in an application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Supreme Court has time and again frowned upon the Higher Courts entertaining writ petitions challenging proceedings under the Act. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/