IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22047 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- CMP.767/2008 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- NEITHA, W/O. MUHAMMED SUJAYEE, THADATHIL, KADAPPA, MYNAGAPPALLY.P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.SAIJU. S RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 2. L.S. SUNIL, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM, KAILAS, NEAR GANAPATHY TEMPLE, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22047/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.7.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: THE TRUE COPY OF CMPNO.767/08 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPCNO.16691/2008 DT 06.06.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 22047 OF 2008 Y ==================== Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2000 is under challenge. 2. The main ground urged was that the Chief Judicial Magistrate does not have the power to entertain an application under Section 14 of the said Act. As this issue was pending consideration of a Division Bench, this writ petition was also admitted and a stay was granted. Now it is informed that the Division Bench by its judgment in W.A.No.428/08 and connected cases, have dismissed the appeals and upheld the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the Chief Judicial Magistrate is competent to entertain an application under Section 14. In view of this, there is nothing on merits to be considered in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereupon makes a prayer that she be permitted to discharge the liability due to the Bank in instalments. WPC 22047/08 :2 : 3. I heard the counsel for the Bank also on this request of the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the submissions made, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the amount due to the Bank shall be discharged by the petitioner in 5 equal monthly instalments, the first of which will be paid on or before 15/9/2008 and the subsequent instalments on or before 15th of every succeeding month. It is clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner moving for waiver of any part of her liability and that in the event the petitioner makes any default in paying the amount as directed above, it will be open to the Bank to proceed with the matter without further notice to her. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp