IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35901 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- C.M.P.3657/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SMT. V.S. SINDHU, PROPRIETRIX, M/S. KRISHNAMATHI ENGINEERING WORKS, HARI GOWRI, M.P.4/272 (3), SREE KRISHNA GARDENS, MALAYINKEEZH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P.K. NANDAKUMAR, RES. AT HARI GOWRI, M.P.4/272 (B), SREE KRISHNA GARDENS, MALAYINKIZH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI, SRI.P.M.JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. BANK OF INDIA, P.T.P. NAGAR BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN-695 001. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE, BANK OF INDIA, KERALA ZONE, KALOOR TOWERS, KALOOR - KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KOCHI-682 017. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JOYI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35901 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- This writ petition is filed challenging coercive steps initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Through Ext.P3 notice the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had requested the petitioner to hand over possession of the immovable property, which is the secured asset, with respect to the loan availed by the petitioner. 2. Eventhough the petitioner had not invoked the statutory remedy available, as a gesture of indulgence, through an interim order this court had stayed dispossession of the petitioner subject to condition of payment of a sum of Rs.4 lakhs. The said interim order was issued on 1.12.2010 fixing the period for payment of the amount as three weeks thereof. The petitioner failed to comply with the condition. W.P.(C).35901/10-K -2- However, on the basis of request made by learned counsel further extension was granted, as a last chance, till 31.12.2010. 3. Today, when the matter was taken up for further consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not comply with the condition. 4. Under such circumstances, I find no merit in entertaining this writ petition, any further. However, it is left open to the petitioner to avail statutory remedy, if permissible under law. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy against the impugned proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb