IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 14434 of 2011(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SHRI.SAJAN T.S., S/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, AGED 41 YEARS, THANDIYAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARIKKATTUKARA LANE, KURIYANCHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT AND PIN-680 006. BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA, ALAGAPPA NAGAR BRANCH, THRISSUR, PIN-680 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. BY SRI. P.V. SURENDRANATH, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.14434/2011-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 16/05/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 14434 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the consequential notice (Ext.P1) issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in exercise of powers vested under Section 14(1) of the said Act. The immovable property of the petitioner, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against since the loan availed by him from the respondent Bank was defaulted repayment. Contention of the petitioner is that, the steps under the SARFAESI Act are proceeded without considering his request to permit payment of the defaulted arrears in reasonable instalments. 2. Heard ; counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. The learned standing counsel pointed out that, the petitioner had already 2 W.P.(C).No. 14434 of 2011 filed another writ petition challenging the very same steps of recovery and that the said writ petition, W.P.(C) No.7990/2011, is pending disposal before this Court. Under such circumstances, the said writ petition was also posted for consideration along with this case. It is noticed that in the said writ petition the petitioner had already challenged the demand raised for payment of arrears in the very same loan account. But, eventhough the said writ petition was filed as early as on 14.3.2011, the same was not seen moved for admission inspite of repeated adjournments obtained by the counsel appearing for the petitioner in that case. 3. Counsel for the respondent further points out that when the Advocate Commissioner had issued notice, the guarantor of the loan transaction had filed yet another writ petition, as W.P.(C) No.2774/2010, and the same was dismissed by this Court. Judges papers of the said writ petition was also called and perused. It is noticed that, in the said writ petition the petitioner herein was also made a party (2nd respondent). It is further noticed that the 3 W.P.(C).No. 14434 of 2011 petitioner in that case had failed to comply with the condition imposed by this Court through an interim order issued on 27.1.2011 insisting payment of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, inspite of extension of time granted subsequently. That writ petition was dismissed finding that it is not proper to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction, in view of failure to comply with the conditions stipulated. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am fully convinced that the petitioner herein made clear attempts to abuse the process of this Court. The petitioner had not revealed filing of the earlier writ petitions, while filing the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner was not having any knowledge about filing of W.P.(C) No.7990/2011, and that he had not instructed anybody to file such a writ petition. On the basis of such a contention, this Court called for and verified the 'vakalath namas' in the present writ petition as well as in W.P.(C) No.7990 of 2011. On a comparison of the signature in both the vakalaths, it is clearly evident that the 4 W.P.(C).No. 14434 of 2011 signatures are subscribed by one and the same person. Even the hand writing of the name inscribed before the signature, is identical in both the 'vakalath namas'. Under such circumstances, I am fully convinced that, the contention now raised regarding ignorance about filing of W.P.(C) No.7990 of 2011 is only a ruse and the same could not be accepted. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am not inclined to grant any relief in this writ petition. As observed above, from the conduct of the petitioner it is evident that he is attempting to approach this Court without disclosing the real facts, with unclean hands. A sheer abuse of the process of law and the process of this Court is explicitly evident from the conduct. Therefore, I am not hesitant to impose compensatory cost while dismissing this writ petition. 6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is made liable for payment of compensatory cost to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the 5 W.P.(C).No. 14434 of 2011 respondents. The respondent Bank will be at liberty to debit the amount in the loan account of the petitioner and to realise the same as if it is an expense due under the loan account. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/