IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 4011 of 2007(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ B. RADHAKRISHNAN, PANTHALUMAN CHOVADU (H), EAST GATE, VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADVS.MR.PKM.HASSAN MR.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ULLALA BRANCH. BY ADVS. MR.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI MR.S.K.MOHAMED SAJEER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.4011/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE SALE DED DT. 16.11.04 . P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 7.11.06. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 4.1.06 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 31.1.07. P5:- COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS . TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 4011 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 24th March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who was a surety to the loan transaction with the respondent /Bank has approached this Court, when the respondent took possession of the property belonging to him, (which was mortgaged to the Bank) invoking the relevant provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. This Court, as per the interim order dated 06.02.2007, had intercepted further coercive steps, on condition that the petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.50,000/- on or before 26.02.2007 and continue to deposit the balance dues at the rate of Rs.35,000/- on or before the 30th of every month commencing from March, 2007; making it clear that any fault in remitting the amount would foreclose the benefit of the interim order. Subsequently, the payment schedule was re-arranged by this W.P.(C) No. 4011 OF 2007 2 court, so as to suit to the convenience of the petitioner, as per the interim order dated 06.02.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire amount due to the Bank has already been paid. Even otherwise, in view of the default clause , the bank is entitled to pursue appropriate steps if there is any failure on the part of the petitioner in remitting the amount. In the above facts and circumstances, nothing remains further to be adjudicated in the present Writ Petition, but for making the interim order absolute. Hence the Writ Petition is disposed of making the interim order absolute. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk