IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21929 of 2010(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V.K.PONNAPPAN, S/O.KOCHUKRISHNAN, MANTHANATHU VELUTHAKALAYIL, KUNNAMTHANAM MURI, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT ASHA NIVAS, PUZHAVATHU,CHANGANACHERRY 686 101, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON, SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, P.B.NO.34, T.K.ROAD, THIRUVALLA 686 101. 2. K.S.SUDARSANAN,PROPRIETOR, M/S S.V.AYURVEDA PHARMACY, SREEVILASAM, CHANGANANCHERRY PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, 686 102. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 21929 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing Ext.P1 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner pursuant to the orders passed by the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate in a petition filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession of the property over which security interest was created by the petitioner at the time of availing the loan from the respondent Bank. There is also a prayer to direct the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to repay the outstanding liability by way of convenient instalments. 2. The learned counsel for the Bank submits on instructions, that the course and proceedings pursued by the petitioner cannot but be described and that the petitioner is only trying to abuse the process of the Court. 3. With regard to the sequence of events, it is brought to the notice of this Court that a cash credit facility of Rs.3.5 lakhs was availed by the 2nd respondent from the 1st respondent on 12.02.1999, for which the petitioner stood as a guarantor, offering his property as the security. The repayment was never effected as assured; under which circumstance, the Bank proceeded with steps under the relevant provisions of law, which 2 WP(C) No. 21929/2010 was sought to be intercepted by the petitioner by filing WP(C)29836/2004, wherein an interim order was passed to maintain 'status-quo', on condition that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- every month for a period of ten months, commencing from 15.11.2004; to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 15th of the succeeding months. It was also made clear that, if any default was committed by the petitioner in satisfying the liability as above, the benefit of the judgment would stand withdrawn. 4. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that, in spite of the above specific direction, the petitioner chose to remit only a sum of Rs.20,000/- and another sum of Rs.10,000/- and as a natural consequence the benefit given by this Court stood withdrawn. So the petitioner filed I.A.612/2005 in the above Writ Petition to modify the interim order, which however was dismissed on 20.01.2005 observing that nothing required to be modified. Later, the Writ Petition itself was dismissed on 30.03.2007 holding that if the petitioner had any subsisting grievance, the petitioner could very well take up the matter before the appropriate authorities; thus declining interference. 5. Met with the situation, the Bank proceeded with further steps for causing the property to be taken over; when the petitioner filed WP(C) 16577/2008. After arguing the matter for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. This in turn was observed and the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The 3 WP(C) No. 21929/2010 petitioner never chose to satisfy the liability to the Bank and in the said circumstance, the present proceedings have been pursued by the Bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, whereby an Advocate Commissioner has appointed who has issued Ext.P1 notice to the petitioner demanding vacant surrender, which in turn is put to challenge by filing the present Writ Petition. 6. Considering the facts and circumstance, this Court finds that there is absolutely no ground to call for interference, so as to enable the petitioner to save the property in question. The course and events pursued by the Bank appear, prima facie, to be in conformity with the statutory requirements. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the steps taken by the Bank, especially with regard to the sale, it is for the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy as provided under the statute; more so in view of the observations made by this Court in judgment dated 30.07.2007 in WP(C)29836/2004. Interference is declined and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with a cost limited to Rs.3,000/-. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc