IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 979 of 2008(N) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. DEVI JEWEL COLLECTIONS, 27/3006 A, CLUB ROAD, GIRINAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-20, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.S.SUBIN. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UCO BANK, KAVERI BUILDINGS, CLOTH BAZAAR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE SARFAESI ACT, UCO BANK, KAVERI BUILDINGS, CLOTH BAZAAR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE, SC. ADV.SRI.V.J.JOHN SRI.C.I.ABRAHAM SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ========================= W.P.(C)NO.979 OF 2008 ========================= Dated this the 17th day of January 2008 JUDGMENT Proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 is under challenge. It is stated by the petitioner that Ext.P1 and P2 notices were issued under Section 13(2) of the said Act and Ext.P3 reply was given. It is stated that the objection filed was rejected by Ext.P4 and that was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C)8876/2007 and that was dismissed. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that subsequently the Bank issued Exts.P5 and P6. According to him, ExtP5 shows that the amount claimed under Ext.P2 has been fully paid. He would further contend that Ext.P6 issued in relation to Ext.P1 shows payment of Rs.3 lakhs. Despite this, counsel contends that when Ext.P7 was issued, while quantifying his liability, payment made by Ext.P6 towards his liability in Ext.P1 has not been given credit and that is the complaint now raised. W.P.(C)979/2008 2 3. While raising this complaint realising his limitations in view of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition, counsel only seeks a facility for paying all the amounts that are due in instalments. On behalf of the Bank it is pointed out that the writ petition itself is not maintainable particularly in view of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition. Standing counsel would further submit that if at all the petitioner seeks an instalment facility the petitioner should make a substantial payment to prove his bona fides. 2. Having regard to the submissions that are made, I feel that another opportunity shall be given to the petitioner for liquidating the liability by paying all the dues in instalments to save the mortgaged properties from a distress sale. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner shall pay the amount that is due to the Bank in six equal monthly instalments commencing from 25th of January 2008 and subsequent instalments payable on the 25th of every succeeding month. Subject to the payment as above, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 will stand deferred and if default is committed in any one of the instalment, the Bank will W.P.(C)979/2008 3 be free to proceed without further notice. In order to enable the petitioner to commence payment as above, I direct the Bank shall issue a statement of accounts to the petitioner which should reach him before 22nd of January 2008. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css/