IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 836 of 2011(D) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2010 IN IA 3333 /2010 IN SA.785/2010 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.V.ULAHANNAN, 59 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH VARKEY, MUKALEL HOUSE, CERUVANDOOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CANARA BANK REP. BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, ETTUMANOOR BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 631. 2. REGISTRAR, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM-18. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC FOR R1 SRI.S.RAMU FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 836 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is under challenge in this writ petition. Considering pendency of the matter before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and also considering failure on the part of the petitioner in complying with the conditions stipulated by the Tribunal, this Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, on behalf of the petitioner learned counsel undertook that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges raised and that he will withdraw the securitisation application. Accordingly, indulgence was shown in issuing an interim order staying confirmation of sale if any takes place, subject to the condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of ` 5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs only). It is reported that the petitioner had remitted this amount. Subsequently, it was revealed 2 W.P.(C).No. 836 of 2011 that the bid was finalised for a sum of ` 15,10,000/-. Therefore, the interim stay was extended subject to condition of further payment of ` 10 lakhs, within two weeks from 11.2.2011. The petitioner had failed to comply with the said condition. He had filed I.A.No.3099 of 2011 seeking to implead the auction bidder and also praying further time of ten months to remit the entire balance amount. It is stated that the petitioner had remitted a sum of ` 2 lakhs out of the amount of ` 10 lakhs insisted. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances and the situation as narrated above, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition any further. However, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal challenging the sale conducted by the respondents. 3. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the sale has already been confirmed since the interim order was not extended and since there was a failure on the part of the petitioner to 3 W.P.(C).No. 836 of 2011 comply with the conditions stipulated. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the sale proceedings if permissible under law, by invoking statutory remedies. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/