IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2011 / 9TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 7770 of 2011(U) ---------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- C.H.MOHAMMEDKOYA MEMORIAL EDUCTIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, PARAKULAM, UMEYANALLOOR, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.HANEEFAKUNJU, FAZEELA MANZIL, PARAKULAM, VADAKKUMTHALA CHERY, THAZHUTHALA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMMOOTTIL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT ALWAYE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER REGISTERED OFFICE, ALWAYE P.O., ALWAYE, PIN - 683 101. 2. MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, KOLLAM BRANCH, KOLLAM P.O., KOLLAM-691 001. 3. AUTHORIZED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER), THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O. - 695 001. 4. JOHN GEORGE, ADVOCATE-COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM - 691 001. (IN CRL.M.P.NO.2527/2010 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM). BY ADV. SRI. GEORGE VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 7770 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFASI ACT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO RELEASE OF THE AUDITORIUM FROM KFC. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE COMMISSIONER. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE BANK DATED 15.8.09. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DRT ERNAKULAM DATED 13.12.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7770 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against steps initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). It is evident that, on an earlier occasion the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.16323 of 2010, challenging the very same steps. The said writ petition was filed at the time when the Advocate Commissioner who was appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, had issued notice requesting the petitioner to hand over possession of the immovable property. The said notice is produced in this writ petition as Ext.P3. The said writ petition was considered along with W.P.(C) No.34412/2010, filed by a person who claims to have taken on lease the immovable properties belonging to the petitioner Trust. However, those writ petitions were withdrawn on the premise that the petitioner herein had 2 W.P.(C).No.7770 of 2011 approached the Bank seeking settlement of the arrears through negotiation. The said writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn through judgment dated 1.12.2010, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to approach the respondent Bank seeking settlement. 2. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that, pursuant to the judgment in the earlier writ petitions, the respondent Bank was approached with an offer for 'one time settlement', which was rejected by the Bank through a letter issued on 16.6.2011, copy of which was made available for my perusal. It is mentioned in the said letter that the total amount due as on 22.6.2011 is approximately Rs.217 lakhs and therefore the request for considering huge concession is not acceptable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Trust has now submitted a fresh proposal increasing the offer for settlement to a sum of Rs.1,64,00,000/-. However, it is for the petitioner to pursue such remedy before the appropriate authority of the Bank. 3 W.P.(C).No.7770 of 2011 3. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank points out that, the petitioner had already approached the DRT invoking Section 17(1), against the proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act. It is further stated that eventhough an interim stay was granted by the DRT imposing condition for payment of a sum of Rs.50 lakhs in two instalments, the petitioner had not complied with the conditions stipulated, till date. 4. Considering the factual situation as mentioned above, it is totally beyond the scope of the jurisdiction vested on this Court to interfere with the proceedings now initiated under the SARFAESI Act. None of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition can be considered in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction vested on this Court, in view of the earlier round of litigation and also in view of the pendency of the securitisation application before the DRT. 5. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate 4 W.P.(C).No.7770 of 2011 remedy for OTS with respondents 1 to 3 as well as liberty is reserved for pursuing the matter which is now pending before the DRT. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/