IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30677 of 2008(B) ---------------------------------------- SA.28/2008 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JAISON, S/O. ALUNKAL ANTONY, ALUNKAL HOUSE, CHANDIROOR VIA . AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SHRIHARI SMT.P.VANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. VIJAYA BANK, M.G. ROAD BRANCH, JOSE ANNEX, JOSE JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD ENRKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER & AUTHORISED OFFICER OF VIJAYA BANK REGIONAL OFFICE, R& R SECTION, 1ST FLOOR, JOSE ANNEX, JOSE JUNCTION, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. MR.JOHN JOSEPH, MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S. JAYA JAY INDUSTRIES, PARIYARATH HOUSE, CHAMARAPARAMBU ROAD, ALUVA 683102. 4. MR.O.K.MOHAMMAD, OOLIKKARA HOUSE, PUTHUVASSERY P.O. NEDUMBASSERY. 5. MR.ARUN M. THOMAS, PALAM COURT, IDUKKI ROAD, THODUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R1 & R2 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.30677 of 2008-B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner was the guarantor of credit facilities availed by respondents 3 to 5 from the first respondent. On default, proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act by issuing a notice under Section 13(2) in 2004. In 2005, measure was taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. That became final and no application was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 against that measure. In January, 2008, the property was brought to sale. On the basis of that, the petitioner filed an application under Section 17 and moved this Court by filing WP(C) 6725/2008 and obtained Ext.P6 judgment, whereby this Court closed that writ petition since the bank submitted that the sale notice was cancelled since the attempt to sell the property was unsuccessful. Thereafter, the third respondent filed WP(C)22767/2008 and the petitioner states WP(C)30677/08 -: 2 :- that some time was granted to him to wipe off the outstandings. While the plea of the petitioner is that certain remittances already made, were not given due credit to, having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the materials on record, I do not find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned proceedings. This is all the more so because, even if there is any question of lack of appropriate accounting at the final stage of settlement of accounts following the sale, the bank has to give due credit to all amounts received by way of deposit or otherwise into the loan account. That does not give rise to a cause of action under Article 226 of the Constitution. Beyond all that is the fact that the petitioner had not complied with any of the conditions imposed as per the interim order of stay granted on 17-10-2008. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/211108