IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 22595 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.K.RAMESH, 48 YEARS, S/O. KAUTHAKUNJU, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KORUTHODE.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK REP. BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, (THE GENERAL MANAGER,), HEAD OFFICE, KANNUR-670 001. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, MUNDAKAYAM BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN-686 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 22595 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is approaching this Court, challenging the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed in the year 2002, the respondent Bank initiated steps against the property, which is the secured asset. On invoking the provisions under section 14(1), the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court was approached and the property in question was sought to be taken over possession. It is evident that the petitioner had not cared to wipe off the liability inspite of repeated demands. According to the petitioner, considerable damage has been caused to his residential building due to a lightening which occurred in the year 2005. However, there is no evidence to the effect that any W.P.(C) No. 22595/2010 2 considerable amount has been paid even before the alleged calamity occurred. 2. Even though interference on merits is not at all desirable, as a gesture of indulgence this Court directed the respondents to maintain status quo subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/- within ten days. The said order was issued on 20-7-2010. At the request of the petitioner,time for compliance of the condition was enlarged by one month from 11-8-2010. Even thereafter no amount was paid. The petitioner further filed I.A. No.13474 of 2010 seeking further time of two weeks from 10-9-2010 for compliance of the condition. Even the time sought for now stands expired. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the loan in question was availed by the petitioner on producing fabricated documents and thereby the petitioner had committed fraudulent acts in availing the loan. It is stated that the Bank had already initiated criminal proceedings in this regard. It is also submitted that the W.P.(C) No. 22595/2010 3 Bank had filed a civil suit for realization of the amounts covered under the loan transaction. 4. Considering the circumstances as described above, I am not at all inclined to show indulgence in granting any further relief. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue statutory remedies, if any available under law. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.