IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 277 of 2011() -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3655/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------- AYLWIN NOEL VARGHESE, AGED 32, S/O. M.P.VARGHESE, MARILYN HOUSE, ASHRAMTHUCHERIL LANE, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 001. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. INDIAN BANK, 66, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU, PIN-600 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. M.SURENDRAN PILLAI, AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, POLAYATHODE BRANCH, VIJAYAJYOTHI BUILDINGS, POLAYATHODE JUNCTION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 001. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA FOR R3 SRI.S.EASWARAN FOR R1&2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH W.P(C).No.3655 of 2011 ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.NO.277 of 2011 & W.P(C).No.3655 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against an interim order dated 7th February, 2011 in W.P(C).No. 3655 of 2011 of the learned Judge staying the coercive steps taken against the writ petitioner-appellant on condition that the he deposited a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. The case of the appellant is that the Bank was not justified in declaring the asset as 'NPA' and that the course contemplated under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ought not to have been pursued. 2. The respondent Bank has filed a statement explaining the facts and figures including the pendency of various other matters which were finally heard and concluded. Any how, this Court does not find it necessary to go into such factual details. 3. Scope of interference by this Court invoking the extraordinary/discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Satywati Tondon & Ors (2010(8) SCC 110). The petitioner is having an effective alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. WA.277/11 & WP(C).3655/11 2 4. In the above circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. If the appellant/petitioner has any grievance with regard to his rights and liberties, it is always open to the appellant to resort to the remedies as provided under the Statute. The Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. We also find that nothing further survives in the Writ Petition. As it stands so, we call W.P(C).No.3655 of 2011 and dismiss the same as well. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE vgs