IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31052 of 2010(F) -------------------------- (CRMP.5091/2010 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- VIJAYAN P.V., AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PALLIPATTUKUDY, CHANGAL, KALADY P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) SRI.V.C.SARATH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, ANGAMALI BRANCH, ANGAMALI P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 572 REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER) 2. REKHA VIJAYAN, W/O.P.V.VIJAYAN, PALLIPATTUKUDY, CHANGAL, KALADY P.O. 683 572 BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 31052 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this Writ Petition is against the proceedings initiated under the Securitistation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repayment of loan availed by the petitioner from the first respondent Bank, recovery steps were initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Invoking Section 14 (1) of the Act the first respondent had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the property. 2. According to the petitioner, inspite of approaches made before the first respondent Bank with promise to settle the account within a reasonable time, the coercive steps were being pursued without acceding to such request. Hence this Writ Petition is filed. 2 WP(C) No. 31052/2010 3. When the case came up for admission, as a gesture of indulgence, this Court had granted an interim stay against dispossession of the property for a period of three weeks, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.2 lakhs within a period of three weeks from 11.10.2010. But till date the petitioner has not complied with the conditions stipulated. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had deprecated the practice of the High Courts in granting interim stay with respect to proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, in the decision reported in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others [2010 (8) SCC 110], considering the effective alternate remedy available under the statute. Therefore I am of the view that indulgence shown in the matter could not be continue since the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions stipulated. Hence I am of the view that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, without prejudice to rights if any 3 WP(C) No. 31052/2010 available to the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 17 (1) of the Act. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to pursue remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the appropriate authority. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc