IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16953 of 2008(R) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ K.SURESH KUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S ABHIRAMI JEWEL PARADISE, MAIN ROAD, NOORANADU. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, NOORANAD BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. AUTHORISED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, NOORANAD. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN - R1 TO 3 SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW - R1 TO 3 SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ============== W.P.(C).No. 16953 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, by which the respondents have sought to recover loan amounts due from the petitioner to the bank by coercive means. The respondents have filed a statement in which it is stated thus: “In November 2007, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing W.P.33828 of 2007. Along with the Writ Petition, he produced an agreement for sale dated 21.9.2007 entered into by his brother in respect of 20.83 Ares of property along with building situated on the opposite side of the mortgaged property. The building therein was an unfinished commercial structure. It was contended that based on the agreement for sale, the said property is going to be conveyed for a sale consideration of 1,41,00,000- and he prayed for time till 28.2.2008 for closing the account of the bank. A true copy of the said agreement for sale, which was produced by the petitioner in the said writ petition as Ext.P9 is produced herewith as Annexure I. Taking note of the said agreement, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant the petitioner time till 28.2.2008 to close the loan account without insisting for payment of any amounts in the mean time. Thereafter, on 7.2.2008, the petitioner filed an application seeking extension of time till 31.3.2008. In para 4 of the affidavit filed in support thereto it was stated that though the Sale Deed was effected, the amounts were not handed over to the petitioner due to various court attachments over the property. He prayed for time till 31.3.2008 to close the account. This Hon'ble Court as per order dated 6.3.2008, granted time till 31.3.2008. A true copy of the extension application with the affidavit filed in support thereto, is produced as Annexure II. Now the W.P.(C).No. 16953 OF 2008 2 petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court stating that the person who entered into the agreement for sale backed off and consequently the petitioner was not able to close the loan account. The statements made by the petitioner are all contradictory. To the information of the Bank, the property has been sold; the sale consideration received and some other property has been acquired for the petitioner's brother. The conduct of the petitioner shows that there is no bona fides in the submissions of the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled for any further accommodation in the matter.” Although, subsequently, a direction petition with an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, he has not cared to deny the said averments. He has also not filed any reply affidavit. He does not deny that the sale deed has been executed. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. Even otherwise, it is settled law that the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, has to be challenged before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in an appeal as provided under Section 17 of the act. For all the above reasons the the writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-