IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 32245 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- UDAYCHANDRAKUMAR S.V, ASWATHY, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER FEDERAL BANK, PONGUMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. FEDERAL BANK RERPESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PONGAMOODU BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) ADV. SRI.P.R.MILTON ADV. SRI.K.J.CHACKOCHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 32245 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 6th April , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the machinery under the SARFAESI Act. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition including as to the quantum payable . 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, the coercive steps were intercepted and the petitioner was directed to satisfy a sum of Rs. Seventy Five thousand, so as to avail the benefit of the interim stay. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the condition has not been complied with. This position is conceded from the part of the petitioner as well. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that only a sum of Rs. 25000/- has been deposited. There is no petition for extension of time as well. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits W.P.(C) No. 32245 OF 2010 2 that, as on date, nearly a sum of Rs.4.4 lakhs is still to be cleared. The correctness of the figure is seriously disputed from the part of the petitioner stating that it is contrary to the actual facts and figures, as narrated above. This Court finds that this is not a fit case where interference is warranted invoking extra ordinary jurisdiciton under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the said circumstances, interference is declined. The Writ Petition is dismissed, however without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy available. All the contentions raised in the Writ Petition are left open. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk