IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35324 of 2008(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MR. P.O. PREMAN, S/O. GOVINDAN, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT REENA NIVAS, TAR ROAD, P.O. MUNDAYAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, KANNUR BRANCH, FORT ROAD, KANNUR -1. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, CHOVVA BRANCH, WESCO BUILDING, P.O. CHOVVA, KANNUR -6. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. A.S.P. KURUP, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.35324 of 2008-E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a debtor. Going by Ext.P4 judgment, this Court has recorded his stand that he does not contest liability as such and at that time, he wanted only waiver of the dues to the extent possible. Ext.P4 judgment was, therefore, issued directing that if the petitioner remits one-third of the amount, it will be open to him to make an appropriate representation for eligible concessions. That judgment was not utilized. Even though the bank extended to the petitioner facility of one time settlement in March, 2008, continuing default led to SARFAESI Act proceedings against different items of properties. Petitioner filed Ext.P1 suit before the Munsiff's Court challenging the securitization proceedings. The learned Munsiff WP(C)35324/08 -: 2 :- is stated to have dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Under such circumstances, the only available recourse for the petitioner is to move the DRT, if he is aggrieved by any measure taken. He cannot insist for any direction for complying with any particular procedure because the failure of compliance of procedure itself may be a ground for an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Under such circumstances, more particularly because, the application for temporary injunction was dismissed, I do not deem it appropriate for this Court to interfere with the matter when the learned counsel for the bank states, on instructions, that the petitioner was not even permitting the bank authorities to have assessed the stock in trade of the petitioner. The petitioner had also not permitted the valuers of the bank to look into the stock in trade. I do not deem it appropriate to extend the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, while leaving open the petitioner's rights to move the DRT in WP(C)35324/08 -: 3 :- accordance with law, if aggrieved, this writ petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/111208