IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 W.A. No. 1861 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9438/2010 Dated 22/09/2010 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------------------ MRS. USHA N.P., AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. PALLIAN, HOUSE NO.32/2988, AISHA ROAD, VYTTILA, COCHIN-19, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHAITHANYA APARTMENTS, H.NO.6A, NEW KALAVATH ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-24. BY ADV. MS. JEENA JOSEPH MR. G.D.PANICKER MS. GISA SUSAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. SYNDICATE BANK, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-24, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SYNDICATE BANK, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-24. BY ADV. MR. S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.A. No. 1861 OF 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 15th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon J. The Writ Petitioner, who lost the case before the learned Single Judge, has filed this appeal. 2. The writ petitioner had availed some business loans from the respondent Bank creating security interest over the property in question. But, the repayments could not be effected on time due to different adverse circumstances, when the accounts were declared as 'NPA' and the Bank proceeded with steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 issuing notice under Section 13 (2). This was challenged by filing W.P (C) 9348 of 2010. When the matter came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, the coercive proceedings were intercepted on condition that the writ petitioner remitted a sum of `5 lakhs on or before 31.03.2010. Subsequently, I.A. 5154 of 2010 was filed, seeking enlargement of time, which was allowed; despite which, the condition was not satisfied. In the said circumstances, interference was declined and the Writ Petition was W.A No. 1861 of 2010 : 2 : dismissed, however, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to pursue the remedy as provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, which in turn forms subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Appeal. 3. When the Writ Appeal came up for consideration on 11.11.2010, it was admitted and the coercive steps were ordered to be kept in abeyance, subject to the satisfaction of a sum of `10 lakhs on or before 13.11.2010, which is stated as complied with. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner's industrial unit has already been taken over by the respondent Bank and it has caused much loss and hardships to the petitioner as well as to the workers of the petitioner's unit, which hence is sought to be interfered with. 5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits on instructions, that, though the appellant has satisfied a sum of `10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only) as ordered by this Court, a further sum of `5 lakhs (Rupees Five lakhs only) has still to be paid so as to wipe off the defaulted instalments. The learned counsel for the Bank also submits that, if the appellant effects the payment of `5 lakhs (Rupees Five lakhs only) as aforesaid within a reasonable time, the W.A No. 1861 of 2010 : 3 : loan account of the appellant can be regularized and the industrial unit can be returned to the appellant. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to give 10 days' time to the appellant to effect the payment as above. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to effect the payment of `5 lakhs (Rupees Five lakhs only) within a period of '10 days'; on which event, the loan account of the appellant shall be regularized and the industrial unit shall be returned to the appellant forthwith. It is also made clear that, if the appellant does not choose to honour the commitment as above, it will be open for the respondent Bank to proceed with further steps for realization of the outstanding liability, in accordance with law. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd