IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34826 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. M/S. INTEGRATED BUSINESS PROMOTIONS, 3RD FLOOR, PANACKAL BUILDING, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN - 682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SIVASANKAR. 2. SRI. ZUBIN BABU, S/O. BABU THOMAS, AGED 36 YEARS, 41/2924, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN, SRI.PRAVEEN HARIHARAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- M/S. FEDERAL BANK LTD., P.B. NO. 1927, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI - 682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.A.ANTONY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34826 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The 1st petitioner is a partnership firm to which the 2nd petitioner is a partner. The firm had availed various credit facilities from the respondent Bank, during the year 2007, to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs. Consequent to default committed in repayment, the respondent bank initiated proceedings against the immovable property, which is the secured asset, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Ext.P4 is the notice published under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules intimating steps taken as contemplated under Section 13(4). 2. According to the petitioners, they are ready and willing to clear payment of the amounts due to the Bank and they are seeking 'One Time Settlement' for settling the accounts, by sale of another property owned by the 2nd petitioner. But without considering the request for permitting settlement, coercive steps are now being initiated. 3. Considering the effective and alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 17(1) of the W.P.(C).34826/10 -2- SARFAESI Act, this court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, as a gesture of indulgence, further proceedings was stayed subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.15 lakhs on or before 31.12.2010. After remitting a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, the petitioner sought extension of time stipulated, for effecting payment of the balance amount. Inspite of grant of time till 20.1.2011 for complying with the condition, the petitioner failed in making payment. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners are now taking steps to arrange financial assistance from another Bank and debt due to the respondent Bank will be settled in one time payment. On the said premise the petitioner is approaching the respondent, seeking waiver of interest/penal interest and expenses to the possible extent. 5. Since the petitioner had failed to comply with the condition stipulated and also considering the failure on their part to invoke statutory remedy available, it is not justified for this court to interdict with the proceedings. Therefore I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition any further. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. 6. However, it is made clear that, dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching W.P.(C).34826/10 -3- the respondent Bank seeking waiver of interest and other amounts to the possible extent, and in the Bank considering such request and taking any decision favourable to the petitioner. It is also made clear that dismissal of this writ petition is without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioners under law for invoking statutory remedies provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb