IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 567 of 2010(U) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : ------------------ BABY RENJITH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, NADUVILAPURACKAL HOUSE, S.N.PARK, ARANATTUKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. MANAGER, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, AYYANTHOLE BRANCH. 2. THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ARBITRATOR CUM SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SAHAKARANA SATHABDI MANDIRAM, TUDA ROAD, THIRUVAMBADY P.O., THRISSUR - 22. 4. JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THRISSUR. ADV.MR.P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNCIL GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JVT P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.567 of 2010-U ---------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T I.A.No.1278 of 2010 is a petition for extension of time to comply with the condition imposed by this Court while intercepting the coercive steps on 11.1.2010. The prayer is vehemently opposed from the part of the respondent bank, pointing that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides on the part of the petitioner. 2. The sequence of events reveals that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17930 of 2009 challenging the steps taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act. The coercive steps were intercepted by this Court on 13.10.2009, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.8 lakhs within one month, which was not satisfied on time. Even though the petitioner was granted extension of time till 23.11.2009, the amount was not paid even within such time, despite the undertaking and assurance given in this regard. Consequently, in the course of the proceedings pending before this Court earlier, the petitioner W.P(C) No.567 of 2010-U 2 sought for one month's time to pay a sum of Rs.12 lakhs, which was opposed from the part of the respondent bank and after taking note of the actual facts and figures, the stand taken by the respondent bank that the petitioner could not be believed at all, was accepted and accordingly, interference was declined and the Writ Petition was dismissed on 25.11.2009 as borne by Ext.P5 judgment. 3. Pursuant to Ext.P5, the bank proceeded with further steps, when the petitioner has approached this Court again by filing the present Writ Petition, challenging the course and proceedings on some or other grounds. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 11.1.2010, it was submitted from the part of the respondent bank, that even at this stage, the bank is ready and willing to accommodate the petitioner and keep the sale scheduled on 28.1.2010 in abeyance, on condition that the petitioner satisfied substantial portion of the liability on or before the last date. It was accordingly, that the submission as above was recorded and the petitioner was directed to deposit the sum of Rs.10 lakhs (out of the total outstanding amount of about Rs.21lakhs) on or before the 25th of January 2010. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has not complied with the said W.P(C) No.567 of 2010-U 3 direction and has now come up before this Court by filing I.A.No.1278 of 2010 seeking for further extension of time. Reliance is also placed on Annexure A1 letter dated 21.1.2010 issued from the State Bank of Travancore, Irinjalakkuda, approving the 'expression of interest' for some credit facility to the tune of Rs.3 crores in connection with some proposed project. The learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that absolutely no reliance can be placed on Annexure A1, as the same is only an 'expression of interest' and not an order sanctioning any loan. It is also pointed out that the present attempt of the petitioner is only to protract things somehow or the other. This Court finds that there is considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the bank, that right from the beginning till the date, the petitioner has not chosen to honour his words or commitment, at least by effecting the portion of the liability, much less the condition imposed as such, while passing the interim orders by this Court. 5. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to keep the Writ Petition pending any more. This Court holds that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the Writ Petition. Interference is declined. It is dismissed accordingly. W.P(C) No.567 of 2010-U 4 However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the Writ Petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner from pursuing the statutory remedy available to him, if any, in accordance with law. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab