IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17500 of 2009(F) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VASANTHAKUMARI D., D/O.DEVAKI AMMA, SREEMANGALAM, MANAKKARA, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.B.SUGATHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., HDFC HOUSE, POST BAG NO.1667, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., HDFC HOUSE, POST BAG NO.1667, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI. 3. RAMESH KUMAR R., ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. BY MR.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 17500 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 24th June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to intercept the coercive steps stated as being taken by the first respondent-Bank against her, invoking the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI Act stating that she has cleared the entire defaulted E.M.Is payable under the loan transaction and hence that she might be permitted to have the loan account regularised. 2. It is relevant to note that the petitioner has approached this Court earlier along with her mother by filing W.P.(C) No.19216 of 2008, which led to Ext. P2 judgment. The only prayer at that point of time was to enable the petitioners therein to clear the entire liability by granting six months' time to pay off the amount. The prayer of the petitioner was vehemently opposed from the part of the Bank, contending that the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 17500 OF 2009 2 had defrauded the Bank in so far as the security property had already been sold by the petitioners without the knowledge of the Bank and parted with the possession thereof as well. However, this Court despite the illegality committed by the petitioners therein felt that some more leniency could be extended on conditions and accordingly, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. Two lakhs within one month and to satisfy the balance amount by way of four equal monthly installments starting from 01.09.2008. It was also made clear that if any default was committed, the Bank was at liberty to proceed with further steps, without any necessity to have issued any fresh notice. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner concedes that the conditions imposed by this Court could not be satisfied by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the arrears payable in respect of the defaulted E.M.Is have been satisfied and that the petitioner might be given the benefit of regularisation of the loan account. This is, obviously a case which was conspicuously absent or mooted before this Court earlier when the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 17500 OF 2009 3 was contending that the entire loan account would be closed; thus seeking for indulgence of this Court, despite the illegality stated as committed by the petitioner in causing the security property to be sold to the strangers without the knowledge of the respondent Bank. 4. There is absolutely no ground to interfere with the matter; especially when Ext.P2 judgment has become final and there is no case for the petitioner that he has approached this Court with a petition for enlargement of time and that the same has been granted. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court that misplaced sympathy is an evil, no interference is called for. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk