IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 37746 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MARY XAVIER, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -23. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, KERALA ZONE, KALOOR TOWERS, KALOOR - KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KOCHI -17. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BOJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 37747 OF 2009. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) Nos. 37746 & 37747 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 30th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in both these cases are one and the same, who is a guarantor to the loan availed by her son, in connection with the latter's business. The challenge is in respect of the steps taken under rhe SARFAESI Act for realisation of the due amount. The petitioner has already approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 26187 of 2009, which culminated in Ext.P3 judgment, whereby the coercive steps were intercepted and the petitioner was pemitted to clear the liability in a phased manner, by depositing a portion of the amount and clearing the balance amount by way of 'six' equal monthly installments commencing from 15.11.2009 as specified therein. The case of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner complied with the condition imposed by this Court by effecting the initial deposit, the Bank did not provide any statement of accounts, as ordered to be given and it was accordingly, that the petitioner was disabled from effecting any further payment. Thereafter, the Bank W.P.(C) Nos. 37746 & 37747 OF 2009 2 proceeded with further steps, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the averments and allegations raised in the Writ Petition are devoid of any merit. With reference to the statement filed before this Court, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had appeared before the Bank on 16.10.2009 after passing Ext. P3 judgment, when the actual amount due from her was duly intimated to the petitioner. It is also stated that a registered letter was issued to the petitioner attaching a statement of accounts, despite which, the petitioner failed to comply with the directions given by this Court, satisfying the liability even after expiry of five months. It is stated that the petitioner remitted only a sum of Rs. Four lakhs in one account and Rs.3.5 lakhs in the other accoount. True copies of the statement of accounts have been produced and marked as Annexures-I and II. The contents of the statement as to serving of copy of the accounts is vehemently opposed from the part of the petitioner, stating that no such statement of account W.P.(C) Nos. 37746 & 37747 OF 2009 3 was ever served to the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Bank that the total outstanding liability under both the loan accounts as in November, 2009 is about Rs.12 lakhs and that the Bank has taken possession of the property on 18.12.2009. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it as a fit case to call for any further interference . The matter has already become final by virtue of Ext. P3 judgment and the allegations raised from the part of the petitioner as to the non- satisfaction of the duty cast upon the Bank does not appear to be correct or sustainable. Accordingly, interference is declined. Both the Writ Petitions are dismissed, however without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy as provided under the Statute by approaching the DRT. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk