IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9438 of 2010(D) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MISS USHA M.P., AGED 38, W/O.ASHOKAN, H.NO.32/2988, AISHA ROAD, VYTILLA, KOCHI-19. BY ADV. SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SYNDICATE BANK, M.G.ROAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SYNDICATE BANK, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9438 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). As per the scheme of the statute the petitioner has got an effective opportunity to object the notice of demand issued under Section 13(2). However, this writ petition is filed seeking indulgence of this court, on the premise that the petitioner is ready to pay off the amount in full, provided reasonable time is granted for effecting such payment. 2. As a gesture of indulgence, when the writ petition came up for admission, a conditional order of status quo was issued directing the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, on or before 31.3.2010. The said order was issued on 19.3.2010. Subsequently the petitioner filed I.A. No.5154/2010 seeking enlargement of time for complying W.P.(C).9438/10-D -2- with the condition. The said application was allowed on 7.4.2010 and 10 days time was granted from 31.3.2010 onwards. Even thereafter the interim order was extended for a period of two months. But the petitioner failed to comply with the condition. Ultimately, on 3.9.2010 the petitioner was given a last opportunity for complying with the condition on or before 15.9.2010. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, there was no representation for the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the petitioner has not so far complied with the condition. 3. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to resort to remedies provided under the SARFAESI Act. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb