IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37481 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ T. SHAJI, KALIYIL VEEDU, VAZHICHAL KUTTAMALA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE, ALUVA REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER 683 101. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, AMBOORI BRANCH, AMBOORI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.37481 of 2010-I ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenging coercive steps initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), the petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion, when the respondent Bank had invoked jurisdiction under Section 14(1). In Ext.P3 judgment, indulgence was shown in permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire balance outstanding, in four equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 30.9.2010 and on or before the last day of succeeding months. In Ext.P3 judgment it was made clear that, on failure, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps for taking over possession of the property. It was also made clear that the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. 2. According to the petitioner he had effected W.P(C) No.37481 of 2010-I 2 considerable payments as evidenced from Ext.P4 series receipts. However, it is evident that that there exists balance amount to be cleared payment. Complaint of the petitioner is that inspite of approaches made, the Bank had not furnished detailed statement of account and details about the balance due. On the other hand coercive steps were pursued on the basis of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court to take over possession of the property. Hence this writ petition is filed. 3. Considering the fact that sufficient indulgence was shown on an earlier occasion, this Court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, as a gesture of indulgence, dispossession was stayed, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/- on or before 7.1.2011. 4. Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she had no instruction with respect to payment. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Bank submitted that payment has W.P(C) No.37481 of 2010-I 3 not been effected in compliance with the stipulations. 5. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to settle balance payment by approaching the Bank. Needless to say that the Bank will issue statement of account, if any specific request is made on that behalf. It is also left open to the petitioner to seek settlement of the balance by waiver of possible amounts. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab