IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35098 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ARADHAN, S/O.ARUMUDHAN PADINJATTAYIL, AGED 39, MOORKKINIKKARA P.O., KOZHUKKULLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., EAST FORT BRANCH, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, EAST FORT, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 005. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 001. ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE FOR R1 & 2 SMT.P.V.PARVATHI FOR R1 & 2 SMT.REENA THOMAS FOR R1 & 2 SRI.L.RAM MOHAN FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.35098 of 2010-J ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging coercive steps of recovery initiated under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repayment of a loan availed by the petitioner along with his wife, the immovable property, which is secured asset, was proceeded against. Ext.P3 is the notice issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules intimating steps taken as contemplated under Section 13(4) of the Act. 2. Since the petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy as provided under the statute, it is not justified on the part of this Court to interdict with the proceedings, exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, as a gesture of indulgence, dispossession of the petitioner from the property was stayed W.P(C) No.35098 of 2010-J 2 through an interim order issued on 23.11.2010, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.5 lakhs within two weeks thereafter. The time stipulated for payment had expired in November 2010. Inspite of adjournments, it is brought to my notice that, the petitioner has not complied with the condition. 3. Under the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition any further. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not prevent the petitioner from approaching the respondent Bank offering payment of the amounts in a phased manner or seeking one time settlement by waiver of any amount to the possible extent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab