IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 28919 of 2010(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- ROHIT.S.VED, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.SANTHIKUMAR S VED, FLAT NO.4, SIVAGANGA APARTMENTS, VADAKKECHIRA, OPP.NORTH BUS STAND, THRISSUR - 680 002. BY ADVS. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, THRISSUR BRANCH, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR. 680 020. R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SC,I.O.BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2010, ALONG WITH WPC.NO.28989/2010, WPC.NO.29031/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J -------------------------------------------- W.P(C) Nos.28919/2010, 28989/2010 & 29031/2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T These writ petitions are filed by the members of the very same family, who had availed different loans from the common respondent Bank. Challenge in these writ petitions are against proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) with respect to property mortgaged for securing the loan. The proceedings are at the stage of issuing possession notice as contemplated under Section 13(4). 2. Eventhough the petitioners have not availed the effective alternative remedy provided under the statute, as a gesture of indulgence, this Court had entertained the matter on the basis of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay off the liability within a reasonable time. Accordingly, interim stay was granted against further steps pursuant to the possession notices, subject to condition of the petitioner in W.P(C) W.P(C) Nos.28919/2010, 28989/2010 & 29031/2010 2 No.28919/2010 remitting a sum of Rs.75,000/- and the petitioner in W.P(C) No.28989 of 2010 remitting a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The interim orders were issued respectively on 20.9.2010 and on 8.10.2010. It is noticed that in W.P(C) No.28919 of 2010, the petitioner had sought for an extension for complying with the conditions by filing I.A.No.13853 of 2010, after remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Eventhough extension was granted for a further period of three weeks from 8.10.2010 the balance amount was not paid. The conditions stipulated in W.P(C) No.28989 of 2010 was also not complied with. 3. Under the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition any further. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to invoke remedies available under the statute before the appropriate authorities. 4. In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed, without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioners to approach the statutory authorities invoking remedies provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab