IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WA.No. 986 of 2010 ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23647/2008 DATED 11.2.2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------------------- M.J.DEVAKI,AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.C.N.RAJAPPAN,VAISAKH HOUSE,KARIMBA.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,STATE BANK OF INDIA, MANKARA BRANCH,MANKARA,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,THE STATE BANK OF INDIA,REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE,PALAKKAD. 3. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR,CENTRAL OFFICE,MUMBAI-400 001. 4. UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS,NEW DELHI. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH R4 BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.986 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23647 of 2008 is the appellant in this writ appeal. 2. The appellant had availed a loan from the State Bank of India. When the loan was not repaid, the Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Securitisation Act'). The appellant thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.12663 of 2007 in this Court raising various contentions. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment permitting the appellant to discharge the entire liability in instalments. The appellant did not comply with the said judgment. When the bank proceeded with the steps taken under the W.A. No.986 of 2010 - 2 - Securitisation Act, the appellant again filed W.P.(C) No.18406 of 2007. By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 26th July, 2007 the said writ petition was dismissed in view of the non-compliance of the directions contained in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.12663 of 2007. The appellant carried the matter in appeal by filing W.A.No.1976 of 2007. The writ appeal was dismissed by Ext.P3 judgment delivered on 10th August, 2007. 3. After Ext.P2 judgment, the bank issued Ext.P4 notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act proposing to sell the property. The appellant thereupon filed Securitisation Application No.82 of 2007 in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam (Kerala and Lakshadweep) under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act. When the said application came up for hearing on 31st October, 2007 the learned counsel appearing for the appellant made an endorsement on the application to the effect that the appellant is only seeking time till 20.2.2008 to discharge the entire liability and time till 20.2.2008 may be W.A. No.986 of 2010 - 3 - granted to discharge the liability to the bank. In the light of the said undertaking, Securitisation Application No.82 of 2007 was dismissed by Ext.P5 order dated 31.10.2007 granting the appellant time till 20.2.2008 to discharge the entire liability. Instead of acting as promised, the appellant filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking a review of Ext.P5 order. That application was dismissed by Ext.P6 order dated 9th May, 2008. The Tribunal noticed that the appellant had no case that her counsel had acted contrary to the instructions or that the undertaking was not made in good faith. 4. The appellant thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.21199 of 2008 in this Court raising various contentions. By Ext.R1(a) judgment delivered on 25th July, 2008 the said writ petition was dismissed. The instant writ petition was thereafter filed within another two weeks challenging the sale notice. The learned Judge before whom the writ petition came up for admission considered the various contentions raised by the parties W.A. No.986 of 2010 - 4 - including the plea of the respondents that writ petition is barred by res judicata in view of the dismissal of the earlier writ petitions and the writ appeal filed therefrom and held that the appellant cannot seek or be granted any of the reliefs prayed for. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. Hence this writ appeal. 5. We heard Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. On going through the pleadings and after hearing the submissions made at the Bar, we are in agreement with the learned single Judge that the reliefs prayed for by the appellant cannot be granted. The appellant had raised various contentions which were repelled by this Court on three earlier occasions. In view of the fact that the said judgments have become final and also the fact that the appellant was afforded a facility to make payment in instalments by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment, the decision of the learned single W.A. No.986 of 2010 - 5 - Judge dismissing the writ petition does not call for any interference. The instant writ petition which was filed within two weeks from Ext.R1(a) judgment is , in our view, an abuse of the process of the court and was rightly dismissed by the learned single Judge. We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ appeal. The Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns