IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 6142 of 2011(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ABDUL KHADER, PLAVILA VEEDU,TKM COLLEGE.P.O., KARICODE,KOLLAM-5. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SRI.N.AJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. PANJAB AND SIND BANK,ZONAL OFFICE, SPENCER TOWER,IST FLOOR,770-A,ANNA SALAI,CHENNAI- 600 002,REP.BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,PANJAB AND SIND BANK,ZONAL OFFICE,SPENCER TOWER, IST FLOOR,770-A,ANNA SALAI,CHENNAI- 600 002. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,PANJAB & SIND BANK, PARRY & C.O. JUNCTION,MAIN ROAD,KOLLAM.691 001 4. NOORJAHAN, PLAVILA VEEDU, T.K.M.COLLEGE PO,KARICODE, KOLLAM-5. 5. ISMAIL MAJEED,PUNNAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PALLISSERICKAL P.O,SASTHAMCOTTA , KOLLAM.691 001 R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI MATHEW,SC SRI.DENU JOSEPH SRI.JUFIN GEORGE VALOORAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.6142/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT DATED 10/02/2001 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23/09/2010. P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29/01/2011. P4 COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 14/02/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6142 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges proceedings initiated by respondents 1 to 3 under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner. This Court has passed several interim orders directing the petitioner to make part payments and granted extension of time to pay the same also. 2. The learned counsel for the bank submits that the petitioner has not complied with the interim orders. When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. 3. It is settled law that proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act has to be challenged in an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as provided under the W.P.(C)No.6142/11 2 Act. In fact, the Supreme Court has even found fault with High Courts for entertaining writ petitions challenging the proceedings under the Act. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially since the petitioner has not complied with the interim orders of this court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.6142/11 3