IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 11054 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. CHAKKO JOSEPH, S/O.CHAKO, AGED 59 KORATHRA HOUSE,KURISUMOODU P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. LIZAMMA CHAKKO, W/O.CHAKKO JOSEPH, AGED 55 YEARS, KORATHRA HOUSE, KURISUMOODU P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. JOHN JACOB, S/O.CHAKKO JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, KORATHRA HOUSE, KURISUMOODU P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THOMAS CHAKKO, AGED 47 YEARS, KORATHRA HOUSE, KURISUMOODU P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. PHILIP CHAKKO, S/O.CHAKKO JOSEPH, AGED 55 YEARS, KORATHRA HOUSE, KURISUMOODU P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. FEDERAL BANK BRANCH OFFICE AT KAVALAM, KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. FEDERAL BANK REGIONAL OFFICE AT CHURCH ROAD, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY FINANCE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, UNION SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA FOR R4 SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE FOR R2 SMT.P.V.PARVATHI FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 11054 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the SARFAESI Act). 2. When this writ petition came up for admission on 30-3-2010, this court issued an interim order to maintain status quo, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting a sum of Rs.10 lakhs within one month. Thereafter, on 26-5- 2010 the writ petition was dismissed, observing that the condition was not complied with and there was no proper representation for the petitioners on various posting dates. While dismissing the writ petition, on 26-5-2010, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank had brought to the notice of this court that the non-compliance of the interim order was only with a mala fide intention to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal to obtain more W.P.(C) No. 11054/2010 2 favourable reliefs. In the judgment dated 26-5-2010 this Court observed that the respondent Bank is at liberty to bring the observations contained in the judgment to the notice of the Tribunal, if any further proceedings is initiated before the Tribunal. Against dismissal of the writ petition, restoration application was filed as M.J.C.No.279 of 2010, which was allowed and the writ petition was restored. 3. On 23-9-2010 when the matter came up for further consideration, this Court noticed that even after restoration of the writ petition the condition imposed as early as in March, 2010 has not been complied with. Further, on the request of the petitioners, a week's time was granted as a last chance for payment of the amount. But it is noticed that the said amount was not paid till date. Today when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the petitioners had filed S.A. No.618 of 2010 and obtained an interim order subject to condition for payment of Rs.2 lakhs. It W.P.(C) No. 11054/2010 3 was further submitted that the practice of the Tribunal in granting interim order without considering pendency of writ petition and without taking note of interim order if any issued by this Court, need be deprecated. There is no evidence before me to presume that the Tribunal had noticed pendency of this writ petition or any orders issued by this Court, when the interim order was issued by the Tribunal. 5. Considering pendency of the Securitisation Application before the Tribunal, I am inclined to grant permission to withdraw this writ petition. However, the respondent will be at liberty to bring to the notice of the Tribunal about the interim orders passed by this Court as well as about the judgment dated 26-5-2010 in order to seek appropriate modification of the interim order. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.