IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 17634 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.UNNIKRISHNAN ,S/O KESAVAKURUP K.S.NIVAS, NEAR VETTIYARA UPS NAVAIKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SMT.PRINCY XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- UNION BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CHIEF MANAGER,UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 17634 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank resorting to the remedy under the SARFAESI Act for realisation of the amount stated as due under a housing loan. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner had availed a housing loan of Rs.10 lakhs from the respondent Bank creating security interest over the property in question. But the repayment could not be effected on time, which made the Bank to proceed with steps under the Act as aforesaid. It is stated in paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court challenging the steps as aforesaid, by filing WP(C) 22696/2009, which was disposed of. But due to the business and financial crisis, the petitioner was unable to remit the sum of Rs.3 lakhs stipulated to be paid within the period as directed. It is further stated in paragraph 8 and elsewhere that the Bank decided to give one more opportunity to the petitioner by recalculating the amounts due. Placing reference to Ext.P4 and the payments effected by the petitioner as borne by Ext.P5, the contention of the petitioner is that, the amount now sought to be realised from the petitioner is not correct and hence the coercive proceedings are sought to be intercepted, for enabling the 2 WP(C) No. 17634/2010 petitioner to settle the outstanding instalments, if any, within a reasonable time, after recalculating the instalments due by applying the agreed rate of interest. 3. The respondent Bank has filed a statement pointing out the actual facts and figures, along with the course and events so far. But for the passing reference to WP(C) 22696/2009 in paragraph 9 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has not chosen to produce a copy of the verdict, which, hence has been produced by the respondent Bank along with statement as Annexure R1(a). The said verdict reveals that the earlier Writ Petition was disposed of, intercepting the coercive proceedings, subject to the condition that the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs on or before the 31st of August, 2009 and the balance amount including the interest and cost towards the defaulted EMIs within one month thereafter, in addition to the liability of the petitioner to clear the regular EMIs. The loan account was ordered to be regularised accordingly, observing that if any default was committed by the petitioner, the Bank would be free to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. 4. Admittedly, the said verdict has become final. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the same by filing any appeal. It is conceded that the petitioner could not satisfy the condition, as stated in paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition. The statement filed by the respondent Bank reveals 3 WP(C) No. 17634/2010 that, after passing Annexure R1(a) verdict on 10.08.2009, the petitioner had filed I.A. 12179/2009 on 05.10.2009 for extension of a further time by one month for complying with the direction. In spite of allowing enlargement of time, the petitioner did not choose to honour the commitment and filed I.A. 14639/2009, seeking for extension by another two weeks. This time also, the petitioner did not think it necessary to satisfy the condition, which led to the proceedings before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate at the instance of the Bank, for enabling the Bank to take possession of the property by filing application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, wherein an order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 30.12.2009. 5. The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was then subjected to challenge by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition 167/2010, which came up for consideration before this Court on 06.01.2010; when the learned counsel appearing for the Bank brought it to the notice of this Court, as to the earlier verdict [R1(a)] and non-compliance of the direction contained in the judgment. Since there was no representation in the forenoon, it was called again in the afternoon. There was no representation for the petitioner and accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed for default. There is no case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed any petition for restoration of the above Writ Petition, nor has it been subjected to challenge by fling any appeal or review. Absolutely no mention has been 4 WP(C) No. 17634/2010 made by the petitioner as to the filing of WP(C) 167/2010 anywhere in the present Writ Petition, however boldly stating in the affidavit in support of the present Writ Petition that the petitioner has not filed any other Writ Petition earlier before this Court for identical relief. The course and conduct cannot but be deprecated in the strongest possible words. Going by the materials on record, this Court finds that, absolutely no interference is warranted and that the petitioner is not entitled to get any further relief in connection with the loan transaction. In the above circumstances, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc