IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35767 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NUJUMA SALEEM, W/O. MOHAMMED SALEEM, AGED 45 YEARS, SITHARA, KAVALAYOOR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-69544. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR SMT.PREEJA. P.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., KADAKKAVOOR BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER - 695 148. 2. K.NARAYANAN, AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, MALAYALA MANORAMA ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695014. ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011 ALONG WITH W.P(C) NO.35768 OF 2010. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.35767/2010 & 35768/2010 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T In both these writ petitions the common petitioner is challenging the recovery steps initiated under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) for realising amounts due under two distinct loan accounts, which were availed from the respondent Bank. It is noticed that the Bank had invoked jurisdiction under Section 14(1) and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had issued Ext.P1 order. In one of the cases (W.P(C) No.35767/2010) it is evident that the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court has shown indulgence in permitting the petitioner to make payment of the amounts due in a phased manner. In the other case, it is evident that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over possession of the property. 2. Considering the effective alternative remedy W.P(C) No.35767/2010 & 35768/2010 2 available under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, it is not proper and justified on the part of this Court to interdict with the proceedings at this stage, since the petitioner has not resorted to any such remedy. It is the contention of the petitioner that the coercive steps are pursued without taking note of the fact that the petitioner has effected considerable payments in the loan account, even after initiating proceedings under Section 14(1). 3. It is pointed out by counsel appearing for the respondent Bank in W.P(C) No.35767 of 2010 that the petitioner in that case had approached this Court on an earlier occasion and this Court had shown indulgence in directing the respondents to permit regularisation of the account. In spite of such indulgence the petitioner had failed to make payment of the amounts as stipulated. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a review petition filed against the judgment is pending. 4. However, as a gesture of indulgence, when the writ petitions came up for admission this Court had granted W.P(C) No.35767/2010 & 35768/2010 3 interim stay against dispossession of the petitioner, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.2 lakhs each. The amount was directed to be paid within two weeks from 30.11.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner filed applications seeking extension of time for compliance of the interim order, and time was extended till 10.1.2011. 5. Today, when the matter was taken up, it is conceded that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions stipulated. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain these writ petitions any further. 6. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy, if any available under law. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab