IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8947 of 2010(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.P.ABDUL KALAM, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.YUSUF HAJI, RESIDING AT AKSAH, KUNHIPPALLY, KOTTALI, KANNUR-16. BY ADV. MR. C.KHALID MR. N.GOPINATHA PANICKER MR. T.P.SAJID RESPONDENTS: --------------- UCO BANK KOZHIKODE, JAYANTHI BUILDING, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT, C.V.GURUVAYURAPPAN, AGED 52, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KASABA POLICE LTD. ADV. MR. GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION THE COURT ON 20.05.2010, ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 8947 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 20th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank resorting to the remedy under the SARFAESI Act, stating that it is not right or proper to have deviated from the compromise, whereby the petitioner was permitted to clear the liability for a total sum of Rs.50 lakhs, out of which, a substantial portion has already been satisfied and only the balance is remaining. 2. The averments and allegations have been rebutted by Bank, by filing a counter affidavit stating that absolutely no interference is warranted. The petitioner is the Managing Partner of a partnership firm, which had availed a cash credit facility of Rs.90 lakhs. Besides this, the petitioner and his wife had availed a housing loan of Rs.23 lakhs, creating security interest over the very same property in question. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 6920 of 2008 raising many a contention. After hearing both the sides, interference was declined and the Writ Petition was dismissed. However, taking a lenient view, the petitioner was permitted to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs on or before 7.3.2008, on which event, the coercive proceedings were deferred and the balance amount was permitted to be cleared by way of 'six' equal monthly installments. W.P. (C) No. 8947 of 2010 : 2 : The learned counsel for the Bank submits that, the petitioner did not prove the word by his deeds and he was not at all anxious to clear the liability despite the indulgence shown by this Court. The explanation offered from the part of the petitioner is that, subsequent to above verdict, some negotiations was there, based on which, the Bank permitted the petitioner to have the matter settled by paying Rs. 50 lakhs. It is stated that, the petitioner has effected a total payment of Rs. 30 lakhs, however conceding that the balance amount in terms of the compromise could not be paid on time. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the non remittance of the balance amount as per the compromise was not wilful, but only because of some unforeseen circumstances and downfall in the business. 3. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that, many an opportunity has been given to the petitioner to wipe off the entire liability including as per the judgment in W.P.(C) 6820 of 2008; but in vein and hence the Bank is very much entitled to proceed against secured assets for realizing the entire outstanding liability. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the contention raised by the petitioner to call for interference is not correct or sustainable. It also cannot be said that the course pursued by the respondent Bank resorting to the remedy under the SARFAESI Act is arbitrary or premature. In the said circumstances, the interference is W.P. (C) No. 8947 of 2010 : 3 : declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this will not bar the way of the petitioner in approaching the Bank seeking for any concession or allowances, which shall be considered and dealt with in appropriate manner. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd