IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 22703 of 2008(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. HOSEA RIGID PVC PIPES, X/494,C.POIL P.O., PARIYAROM, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER - P.K. SEBASTIAN, 2. P.K. SEBASTIN, S/O. KURIAN, M/S. HOSEA RIGID PVC.PIPES, X/494, C. POIL P.O., PARIYAROM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. SOLY SEBASTIN,S/O. KURIAN, M/S. HOSEA RIGID PVC PIPES, X/494, C.POIL P.O., PARIYAROM, KANNUR DISTRICT 4. FRANCIS KURIAN, S/O. P.J. KURIAN, PONMANKAL HOUSE, VANKULATHU HOUSE, AZHIKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.ASOKAN, SMT.S.AMINA. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TALIPARAMBA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER (ADVANCES), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGIONAL OFFCE KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.SATHISH NINAN, MR.SANTHOSH MATHEW. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.22703/2008-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13 (2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED TO PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 DTD. 14/02/2008. EXT.P.1.A: COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13 (2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED TO THE P.4. DTD. 14/02/2008. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN TO THE PETITIONERS DTD. 23/03/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 22703 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The only prayer of the petitioners is for facility to pay off the amounts in instalments. Now the petitioners submit that the Bank may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for one time settlement. Counsel for the Bank submits that the claim of the petitioners for one time settlement was considered and a settlement was offered to the petitioners which the petitioners have not availed of by paying the one time settlement amount. In the above circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to any further relief in the matter. In any view of the matter, as settled by the Supreme Court, proceedings under the Act has to be challenged before the DRT in an appeal as provided under the Act. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/