IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17233 of 2007(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.N.RAMACHANDRAN, MANAGING PARTNER, SAGAR EXIM SADIYA BUILDING, ST.RITA'S ROAD, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA, KOCHI-19. BY ADV. MR.GEORGIE SIMON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, VIJAYA BANK, VYTTILA BRANCH, SIMSON TOWERS, S.A.ROAD, KOCHI-19. 2. VIJAYA BANK, VYTTILA BRANCH, SIMSON TOWERS, S.A.ROAD, KOCHI-19, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. R1 BY ADVS. MR.K.ANAND, SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.17233/2007-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION DT. 08/11/2004. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE PUBLISHED ON MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DTD. 09/05/07. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF SECURITISATION APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AT DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 17233 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd August, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the respondents. The petitioner's only contention is that he is willing to settle the matter out of court by paying the amounts due in instalments. In view of his readiness to pay the amounts in instalments, on 8-6-2007, this Court passed the following interim order: “In spite of service of notice through messenger, there is no appearance for the respondents. Since petitioner undertakes to remit Rs. 15 lakhs which is almost 50% of the liability due to the Bank on the date notified for receipt of tender, there will be a direction to the respondents not to open the tenders on the next day in terms of the sale notice, if petitioner remits Rs. 15 lakhs on or before 11-6-2007. Post on 13-6-2007.” 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not cared to pay the amounts as directed in the interim order. That being so, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any further indulgence in the matter. Even otherwise, in respect of proceedings under the Act, the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as provided under the Act itself. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/