IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20959 of 2010(T) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- R.JAYAKUMAR, AGED 33, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, R/AT JAYAVILASAM, CHEMMANGANADU P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL), SMT.PRINCY XAVIER. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- AUTHORISED OFFICER, ASST.GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 20959 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the coercive steps taken by the respondent-bank resorting to the remedy under the SARFAESI Act, to realise the amount stated as due under a housing loan. Many a ground has been raised in the writ petition on the question of fact, as well as on the question of law including the sustainability of the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that no such notice was ever issued or served to the petitioner. When this matter came up before this Court on 6.7.2010, the coercive proceedings were intercepted, on condition that the petitioner satisfied a sum of Rs.One lakh within one week from that date, which is stated as complied with, though belatedly. 2. The respondent has filed a statement pointing out that the petitioner has not chosen to approach this Court with clean hands and that there is a lot of suppression of material facts. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.9923 of 2010 raising some other contentions, through a different lawyer and after considering the grievance, the petitioner was given an opportunity to have the loan account regularised on condition that the 'overdue' amount was satisfied. It was also made clear that, if the petitioner committed any default in satisfying the 'overdue' WPC No.20959/2010 2 amounts/arrears, or in the event of committing two consecutive defaults in respect of the regular EMIs, the respondent bank would be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire outstanding liability in a lump sum. Since the petitioner has not satisfied the 'overdue' amount as specified, the respondent-bank proceeded with further steps, which in turn forms the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 3. Nothing has been mentioned in this writ petition as to the filing of earlier Writ Petition and the turn of events. Mr.George Thomas Mevada, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Bank submits that the contention raised in the writ petition that the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act was never served to the petitioner is quite wrong and unbelievable as there is admission as to the receipt of notice in para 3 of the earlier W.P.(C) No.9923 of 2010. It is also stated in para 6 of the statement filed on behalf of the Bank, that the petitioner has apparently got a suit for money filed against him collusively, as O.S 152 of 2010, through one Thankappan Pillai and got an order of attachment, which in fact has been communicated to the Bank by letter dated 3.7.2010 produced and marked as Annexure 2. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the counsel is not aware of the earlier proceedings. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of this Writ Petition wherein it is stated that he has not filed any WPC No.20959/2010 3 other Writ Petition earlier, for identical relief in respect of the same subject matter; which has now proved to be wrong. No explanation is forth coming as to the non-mentioning of the filing of the earlier writ petition leading to Annexure 1 judgment passed by this Court. In the above circumstances, this is not a case where any interference is warranted. The petitioner does not deserve any sympathy. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON (JUDGE) vps WPC No.20959/2010 4