IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 OP (DRT).No. 1219 of 2010(O) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2936/2010 IN SA.345/2010 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER:- ------------------- K.R.HARIKRISHNAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.M.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLA SANTHI BHAVAN, KAIPUZHA P.O.,KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT:- -------------------- THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, EDAPPALLY BRANCH ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SC,I.O.BANK FOR R1 THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = OP(DRT).No.1219 of 2010-O. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Coercive steps initiated under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is under hallenge in this writ petition. It is noticed that the petitioner had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal invoking Sec.17(1) and a Securitisation Application No.345/2010 was filed before that Tribunal. It is further stated that, Ext.P1 interim order was issued by that Tribunal declining relief sought for by the petitioner to direct one time settlement. The Tribunal permitted the sale to be proclaimed and an application filed in this regard was dismissed, however granting time for the petitioner to close the account by effecting payment on or before 20.12.2010. Since the petitioner had failed to comply with such condition, the respondent Bank had initiated further OP(DRT).No.1219 of 2010-O. 2 coercive steps. 2. Considering the fact that, the Securitisation Application filed by the petitioner is pending disposal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and also considering the fact that the petitioner had failed to settle the account before the date stipulated in the interim order passed by that Tribunal, this Court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, when the matter was taken up on 20.12.2010 an interim order was issued subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of ` 20 lakhs, on or before 5.1.2011. Subsequently on the basis of an application filed by the petitioner the time stipulated for complying with the condition was extended till 31.1.2011. 3. It is conceded that the petitioner has not remitted any amount pursuant to the interim order, till date. The petitioner had filed IA.No.435/2011 producing a copy of the alleged agreement through which certain immovable property is stated to have been agreemented for sale. OP(DRT).No.1219 of 2010-O. 3 According to the petitioner, the amount due to the respondent Bank can be paid as and when he receives sale consideration on the basis of the said agreement, copy of which is produced as Annexure-A1. Under such circumstance the petitioner seeks further time till 28.2.2011 for remittance of the amount. 4. It is pertinent to note that, when the extension was granted on 13.1.2011, it was specifically made clear that no further extension will be granted under any circumstances and on failure the writ petition will be dismissed. It is also pertinent to note that even going by the terms of the alleged agreement, the petitioner had received an advance amount of ` Five lakhs. But the petitioner has not remitted any such amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others (2010(8) SCC 110) has deprecated the practice of the High Courts granting stay in the matter of SARFAESI proceedings. OP(DRT).No.1219 of 2010-O. 4 5. Under these circumstances I am not at all inclined to entertain this writ petition any further. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue the matter before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is also made clear that liberty of the petitioner to approach the respondent for arriving one time settlement as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, is left open. 6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, making it clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue the remedies, as stated above, if available under law. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-