IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32403 of 2008(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.JAYAKRISHNAN S/O.VISWANATHAN, AGED 38 YEARS, THONEKKOTTU HOUSE, SRI KRISHNA, INNER RING ROAD, EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO, ADV. SMT.C.M.CHARISMA. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, KOZHIKODE CIRCLE, SAPTHATHI BHAVAN, MINI BYPASS ROAD, GOVINDAPURAM, PALAKKAD, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. 2. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, GURUVAYOOR BRANCH, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.32403 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner availed a housing loan. According to the learned counsel for the bank, he has apparently siphoned off those funds for other purpose and has also demolished whatever he had constructed, thereby reducing the value and utility of the security interest. From Ext.P3, it can be noticed that the bank had recalled the advance with entire dues as per letter dated 1-8-2008 since the transaction had been classified as an NPA in terms of the RBI guidelines. Therefore, Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act has been appropriately exercised. Hence, even if I treat Ext.P3 as only an intimation for further action in terms of Section 13(4) of that Act, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned action. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that his WPC32403/08 -:2:- client gives up all contentions challenging the impugned action and also forecloses his right, if any, to move the DRT or other Court or Tribunal challenging the impugned proceedings and seeks a last opportunity of two months to pay off the entire outstandings. This is opposed by the learned counsel for the bank on the premise that no leniency could be shown to a debtor who had violated the terms of lending and has siphoned off the amount for different purposes, that too, for commercial purpose after availing the facility as a housing loan. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the bank that the petitioner has issued a cheque which bounced and the bank is moving in terms of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, while repelling all contentions of the petitioner and foreclosing the WPC32403/08 -:3:- petitioner from taking recourse to statutory remedy, this writ petition is ordered directing that if the petitioner deposits Rs.20 lakhs within a period of one month and the entire remaining portion within another one month, further distress action will stand deferred. It is clarified that the time limit fixed above shall be treated as peremptory under any circumstances. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.