IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 8541 of 2011(P) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- SEBASTIAN, S/O. GABRIEL, THUNDUPARAMBIL, BEACH WARD, THIRUVAMPADY.P.O, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 036. 2. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, VADAICANAL BEACH, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER - 688 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 8541 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASS BOOK ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23-02-2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 03-03-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 04-03-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 8541 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 15th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the Act”), for recovery of the loan amounts defaulted by the petitioner. The petitioner does not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. 2. This Court passed the following interim order on 23.3.2011; “Standing Counsel is directed to get instructions. Meanwhile the petitioner may not be dispossessed pursuant to Ext.P2 if not already dispossessed subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) within two weeks from today. Post after two weeks.” It was followed by another order on 8.4.2011 as follows; “It is stated that out of the amount of Rs.75,000/- insisted, the petitioner has paid an sum of Rs.50,000/-. He seeks extension of time for payment of the balance amount. The prayer is opposed by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. However, time for payment of the balance amount of Rs.25,000/-is extended till 30.4.2011. If payment as stipulated above is made, interim order will continue till 31.5.2011 subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- on or before 25.5.2011. Again, on 5.7.2011, following order was passed; “The petitioner is given one week's time to comply with the conditions of the interim directions passed by this Court. If the petitioner does not comply with the interim orders within that time, the writ petition would stand dismissed insofar as against proceedings under the Securitization Act, the petitioner has to seek appellate remedies. w.p.c.8541/11 2 Post after a week.” 3. Admittedly the petitioner has not complied with the conditions in the interim orders. It is settled law that proceedings under the Act have to be challenged in an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Supreme Court has repeatedly frowned upon the High Courts entertaining writ petitions challenging proceedings under the Act. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, especially when the petitioner has not complied with the interim orders. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge