IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1161 of 2011(U) ------------------------- VMP`.0832/2010 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SATHEESH K.R., PROPRIETOR, SOORYA WASH, SOORYA COMPLEX, ELAMAD P.O., AYOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT AND RESIDING AT KRISHNA BHAVAN, ARKANNOOR P.O., AYOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER. BY SRI.A.S.P.KURUP - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.1161 of 2011-U ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against the proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repayment of a 'cash credit facility' as well as a 'term loan' availed from the respondent Bank, proceedings was initiated under Section 14(1) and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the immovable property, which is the secured asset. In view of the effective alternative remedy available and in view of the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India V Sathyawati Tondon & others (2010(8) SCC 110), this Court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 2. However, dispossession was stayed through an interim order insisting upon the petitioner for payment of a W.P(C) No.1161 of 2011-U 2 sum of Rs.4 lakhs on or before 31.1.2011. It is conceded that the petitioner had failed to comply with the condition. 3. Under the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition any further. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondent Bank seeking appropriate remedy for settlement of the account either through instalment payment or 'one time settlement' by waiver of amounts to the possible extent. It is further made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the respondent Bank considering such request if any made. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab