IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21226 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------------- CRMP.2974/2010 of C.J.M., ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JAYADEV PALIATH, 57/3694, JANAKI NIVAS, MARKET ROAD, COCHIN-682 011. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA, SMT.ROSAMMA MATHEW, SRI.ANZAR BASHEER, SRI.R.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, SRI.PRATHEUSH M.ANAND. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, ERNAKULAM BRANCH, NARAKATHARA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-35. BY ADV. MR.LAL GEORGE, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.21226 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent Bank, creating security interest over an extent of 35 cents of land belonging to the petitioner, which is covered by the Sale Deed No.1433/04 of SRO, Panavally. But the repayments were not effected on time, under which circumstances, the account was declared as `NPA' and the Bank proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act. 2. On issuance of the relevant proceedings under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, the petitioner approached the DRT, Ernakulam by filing S.A.579 of 2009 as evidenced by Ext.P1. It is stated that the respondent Bank has filed Ext.P2 written statement in the said proceedings and that the petitioner has filed an affidavit/undertaking by way of Ext.P3 dated 21.6.2010 stating that the petitioner can pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- within 90 days, on condition that the original document along with the related documents for 32 cents of mortgaged property be released to the petitioner at the time of payment of the Wpc 21226/2010 2 aforesaid sum of Rs.12,00,000/-. It is without any regard to the said proposal, that the respondent Bank has approached the concerned CJM Court by filing Ext.P4 petition under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act seeking for necessary assistance to take physical possession of the property and that the petitioner is likely to be evicted from the premises, which is sought to be intercepted in this writ petition. 3. The counsel for the Bank submits with reference to the materials on record, that the course and conduct being pursued by the petitioner can't but be deprecated. More so, since the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy as provided under Section 17 by approaching DRT and as such, parallel adjudication of the proceedings by this Court entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 is not at all warranted. The learned counsel also brought it to the notice of this Court that, the prayer of the petitioner (as raised in prayer No.2)was only to allow the petitioner a breathing time of `six months' to pay off the entire liability. Ext.P1 proceedings are dated 30.11.2009 and that the period of six months sought for to wipe off the entire liability is already over and as such, no interference is warranted. Wpc 21226/2010 3 4. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent Bank is not aware of filing any proceedings as Ext.P3 undertaking to effect payment of a sum of Rs.12,00,,000/-. Even otherwise, it is stated that the said course is not acceptable to the respondent, for the fact that the total outstanding liability is more than Rs.23,00,000/-. That apart, the so called undertaking stated as given by the petitioner vide Ext.P3 affidavit, is subject to some `riders/conditions', notwithstanding the fact that the original prayer in the SA was only to enable the petitioner to clear the liability within `six months'. In other words, the interim prayer now sought for by the petitioner is in fact amounting to widening the original prayer itself, which is not liable to be entertained. The learned counsel also brought it to the notice of this Court that, even though the petitioner has filed application for stay and the same was moved thrice, no favourable orders could be obtained in the proceedings, which however is a matter to be considered by the DRT, if further steps are taken by the petitioner for redressal of the grievances. 5. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit or bonafides in this case and therefore no interference is warranted. Wpc 21226/2010 4 The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. It is made clear that, this will not preclude the petitioner from moving the DRT for passing appropriate reliefs in accordance with law. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE lgk