IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 2585 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NAJEEM.K., PROPRIETOR, FORMOST TYRES, HASSANIYA ITHIKKARA, MYLAKKADU P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH (CHIRAKKARA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- AUTHORIZED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, CHATHANNOOR BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 2585 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this court challenging the steps taken by the first respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act for realisation of the amount stated as due from him. It is stated that the petitioner had availed two loans from the respondent Bank which, however, could not be repaid on time because of some frustrating circumstances. When the mater came up for consideration before this court, the coercive steps were intercepted as per order dated 16/2/2010, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs within one week from that date. 2. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the condition imposed by this court was not complied with and that a portion of the said liability is yet to be satisfied by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the total outstanding liability as on date is about Rs.10 Lakhs. With reference to the statement filed, the learned counsel further submits that, altogether three loans were taken by the WPC No.2585/2010. -2- petitioner and every time the Bank proceeded with steps for realisation of the due amount, the petitioner was seeking to avoid the same somehow or the other. It is also stated that the petitioner had approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.6117/2009 which was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred S.A.No.130/2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which was disposed of by the Tribunal directing the petitioner to satisfy the outstanding liability by way of instalments at the rate of Rs.2 Lakhs every month. It is stated that the petitioner did not comply with the condition as specified by the Tribunal and, accordingly, the said proceedings were also dismissed. The petitioner himself has stated in the writ petition that the above S.A. was dismissed for default on the part of the petitioner. 3. considering the fact that the petitioner was provided with adequate opportunity to clear the outstanding liability by way of monthly instalments, which however does not appear to have been honoured, and since the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the verdict passed by the DRT by filing the statutory appeal, if actually aggrieved in any manner this court does not WPC No.2585/2010. -3- find it as a fit case necessitating interference invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the Bank for appropriate reliefs, which shall be solely at the discretion of the Bank. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dpk