IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16821 of 2009(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SUJI VENU, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.S. VENU, KANNIMATTOM HOUSE, CMC-27,CHERTHALA.P.O,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,NOW RESIDING AT AHAMMED COLONY,H.NO.12,NAKEEL, ZALKAI, DUBAI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PUSHPAVALLY,D/O.BHAVANI,X/113,KELAMANGALAM, SOUTH ARYAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV.MR.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MULLAKKAL BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA.P.O. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR. K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..2/- ....2..... WPC.NO.16821/2009 W J U D G M E N T When the matter had come up for consideration before this court on 26/05/2009, there was no representation for the petitioner and hence it was adjourned to 05/06/2009, on that day also, there was no representation for the petitioner, which made the court to have if adjourned to this date. Today also is not an exception. It appears that the petitioner is no more interested in the cause of action projected in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed for default. 18/06/2009 Sd/-P.R.Ramachandra Menon,Judge /True Copy/ P.S.to Judge Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 16821 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, along with her husband had availed a loan of Rs.27 lakhs from the respondent Bank in the year 2004, for purchasing a residential building. Subsequently, the borrowers turned to be defaulters and did not effect the repayments on time, despite the fact that both the husband and wife were employed in the Gulf countries, as borne by the records submitted before the Bank. Finding that there was no other alternative for the Bank, but to proceed against the assets, appropriate steps were pursued invoking the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI Act. 2. Challenging the above proceedings, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) 23852 of 2008, which according to the petitioner, was disposed of declining interference, but permitting her to avail the statutory remedy by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is case of the petitioner that, she approached the DRT by filing SA 63 of 2009, where an interim stay was granted, on condition that, the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs on 5.3.2009 and another sum of Rs.3 lakhs on 10.4.2009. The case of the petitioner is that, even though the first payment has already been satisfied, the second payment could not be effected and hence has approached this WP (C) No. 16821 of 2009 : 2 : Court challenging the sale proceedings. It is further conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that ,no petition has ever been filed before the Tribunal for enlargement of time, nor has the order imposing the condition for availing the benefit of stay been subjected to challenge by filing any appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that, the averments made in paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition and the submissions made before this Court that WP (C) 23852 of 2008 was dismissed with liberty to approach the DRT, do not keep the right track of truth; in so far as the said case was disposed of as per judgment dated 28.8.2008, observing that, the only relief pressed before this Court was for a chance to pay off the liability by way of installments. Observing that, this Court was taking a lenient view, the Writ Petition was disposed of, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs within one month and the balance to be cleared in six equal monthly installments starting from 1.11.2008. It was also observed that, if any default was committed by the petitioner, the benefit granted by Court by virtue of the judgment would stand withdrawn and that the respondent Bank could continue the coercive proceedings without any further notice. Since copy of the above judgment was not produced by the petitioner along with the Writ Petition, this Court had to call for the same from the Registry, which WP (C) No. 16821 of 2009 : 3 : revealed the actual position as noted above. This substantiates the fact that the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition stating that the W.P.(c) 23852 of 2008 was disposed of with liberty to approach the DRT, is nothing but a wilful misrepresentation. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that, despite the liberty given by this Court to clear the amount by way of installments, it was not honoured by the petitioner, who chose to file an Interlocutory Application seeking for enlargement of time. This Court passed an order on 12.12.2008 directing the petitioner to effect the deposit as specified and then to move the I.A., which was also not satisfied from the part of the petitioner and this led to taking over the possession of the property by the Bank. At that point, through the intervention of some mediators, the petitioner and her husband gave an undertaking before the Bank that, they would effect vacant surrender of the premises on the specified date; which also was not honoured. It was thereafter, that the petitioner rushed to the DRT by filing S.A. 63 of 2009, obtaining an interim order of stay, subject to the condition that the petitioner remitted an amount as prescribed and noted hereinbefore. The petitioner has recklessly turned around again, through the present Writ Petition, challenging the recovery proceedings including the notification for sale on many a ground, without any regard to the sequence of events so far and with scant regards to the Rule of Law WP (C) No. 16821 of 2009 : 4 : and binding orders and precedents as aforesaid. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner as well her husband who are employed in the Gulf countries reaping their fortune, do not deserve any sympathy at all and no interference is warranted in the present Writ Petition, particularly in view of the misrepresentation made with regard to the earlier Writ Petition [WP (C) 23852 of 2008]. It appears that, the petitioner presumably wanted to take this Court for a ride, which cannot be permitted on any event. In the above facts and circumstances, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd