IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19933 of 2008(W) -------------------------------------- CMP.4116/2007 of C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- SREEKANTAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, M/S KRISHNA HANDLOOMS, USHUS, POOVATHUR, MANCHAVILAKOM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH SRI.M.R.SARIN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,ZONAL OFFICE, REGIONAL II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 19933 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 initiated by the 1st respondent for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the 1st respondent. His grievance now is that the 1st respondent has initiated proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 14 of the Act. According to the petitioner, the proceedings before the 2nd respondent is without jurisdiction. He also points out that this Court has in a writ appeal stayed such proceedings . The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to stay all further proceedings of Ext. P1 and P2 till the disposal of this writ petition. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent bank not to proceed the petitioner's property on the basis of Ext. P1 and Ext. P2 till disposal of this writ petition.” 2. The learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court challenging the securitisation proceedings by filing W.P(C) No. 1045/2008, which was disposed of by this Court directing the petitioner to pay off the amounts in five instalments. The petitioner did not pay any instalment. Therefore, the 1st respondent continued proceedings and by resorting to the proceedings under Section 14, possession of the security interest has already been taken. It is thereafter the petitioner has now come with this writ petition. In the said circumstances, according to the standing counsel, there is no bona fides in the contentions of the petitioner and this court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. W.P.C. No. 19933/2008 -: 2 :- 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Now that the possession has already been taken over by the Bank, I do not think that this Court can reverse the process especially since there is no final judgment as to the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to deal with petitions under Section 14 yet. A writ appeal is pending in which there is an order of stay in a case where possession had not already been taken over. In any event, the petitioner had already moved this Court and obtained a judgment permitting the petitioner to pay the outstanding amounts in five instalments which admittedly he has not paid. I do not think that without complying with those directions, the petitioner can now take a contention regarding jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to deal with a petition under Section 14, that too, after the event. It is very much clear that the attempt of the petitioner is to protract the matter as far as possible and there is no bona fides in this writ petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/