IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9886 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. D.SUNIL, SUNIL BHAVAN, POOVANVILA, THIRUPURAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. S.R.PRAVEEJA, SUNIL BHAVAN, POOVANVILA, THIRUPURAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. M.R.NISHA, SUNIL BHAVAN, POOVANVILA, THIRUPURAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. D.PRADEEP, SUNIL BHAVAN, POOVANVILA, THIRUPURAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. D.RAJEEV, SUNIL BHAVAN, POOVANVILA, THIRUPURAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LTD., THIRUPURAM BRANCH, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THIRUNELVELI REGION, TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LTD. TAMILNAD. ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.9886 of 2010-I ---------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act, in the course of the realisation of the amount stated as due under a loan transaction. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 24.3.2010, the coercive steps were intercepted on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on or before 31st of March 2010. The matter came up further consideration on 5.4.2010 and 19.5.2010. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits on instructions, that the petitioner, after obtaining the interim order from this Court, has not chosen to satisfy the condition and as such, no further interference is warranted. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it as a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of W.P(C) No.9886 of 2010-I 2 the Constitution of India. Hence, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy available in accordance with law. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab