IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36902 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.BABU SHABEER, S/O.KUNJI MUHAMMED, MANGALASSERI HOUSE, A.R.NAGAR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, UPHILL, POST MALAPPURAM. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, UPHILL, POST MALAPPURAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOTTAKKAL BRANCH OFFICE, POST KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.36902 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, for recovery of the loan amounts due from the petitioner to the 1st respondent bank. At the time of admission, as a condition for stay, this Court directed the petitioner to pay an amount of ` 7,50,000/- on or before 8.1.2011. That direction has not been complied with. On 10.1.2011, this Court passed the following further order; “Adjournment is sought for on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there is a burialment in his family. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the conditions stipulated has not been complied with. The matter is posted for 18.1.2011 making it clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the condition within that time, the writ petition will be dismissed.” The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the condition in the interim order has not been complied with even now. As far as proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, are concerned, the petitioner's remedy lies in filing an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2