IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22130 of 2010(M) -------------------------- SA.37/2006 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHAMMED HARIS,S/O.K.HAMEED, AGED 41 YEARS, M/S.CITIZEN TRADERS, BIG BAZAR, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABHILASH SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, CALICUT. 2. THE AGM,STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE,KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 22130 of 2010-M ---------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner and his wife availed a cash credit facility to the extent of Rs.30 lakhs from the respondent Bank on 29.6.2004, on the strength of security interest created over the property in question. But the re-payment could not be effected on time, under which circumstances, the Bank declared the account as 'NPA' on 30.9.2005 and proceeded with further steps invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act, on 12.10.2005. 2. Met with the circumstances, the petitioner approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A.No.37 of 2006 wherein, an order was passed granting interim stay, directing the petitioner to satisfy a portion of the liability, which however was not satisfied. Since the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal were not finalised and the S.A was being adjourned on every occasion, the respondent Bank approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.5649 of 2010, for finalisation of the proceedings without further delay. The above Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court, as per judgment W.P(C) No. 22130 of 2010-M 2 dated 24.6.2010, whereby the Tribunal was directed to finalise the Securitisation Application within the specified time. 3. Pursuant to the judgment, the Tribunal considered the matter and final order was passed on 22.6.2010, as borne by Ext.P2, whereby interference was declined and the Securitisation Application was dismissed on 22.6.2010. The petitioner has approached this Court for directing the respondents to consider the settlement proposal of the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to settle the loan account in instalments and to restrain them from taking over the physical possession of the property till finalisation of Ext.P4 representation. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the prayer of the petitioner is very much limited. However, there is absolutely no explanation with regard to the course and conduct deprecated by the Tribunal, as taken note of in para 9 of Ext.P2 verdict. 5. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that, the intention of the petitioner is only to protract the proceedings, as evident from the fact that, even after finalisation of the Securitisation Application by passing Ext.P2 verdict by the Tribunal, W.P(C) No. 22130 of 2010-M 3 the petitioner has chosen to approach the Sub Court-I, Calicut, by filing O.S.No.538 of 2010, seeking for temporary injunction and not to proceed against the property in question. The learned counsel also submits, with reference to the relevant provisions of law that, the suit itself is not maintainable under any circumstances and since the petitioner could not get any interim relief or injunction, he has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it as a fit case to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab