IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10654 of 2011(F) --------------------------------------- CMP.NO. 1110/2011 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, THUSHARA HOUSE, EDAKULANGARA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10654 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- It is noticed that, the impugned proceedings, which was initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition filed earlier. Eventhough this court was not inclined to entertain the said writ petition, filed as WP(C).1873/2011, an interim stay was granted subject to condition of payment of Rs.10 lakhs. Eventhough the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-, he had failed in remitting the balance amount, inspite of extension of the time stipulated. On that premise the said writ petition was dismissed on 4.3.2011, but reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy if any available. 2. Under such circumstances a subsequent writ petition filed seeking challenge against the very same proceedings is not at all sustainable. It is submitted by the W.P.(C).10654/11 -2- learned counsel for the petitioner that the Bank had already granted time for payment of the amounts and directed to keep in abeyance coercive steps. Even if any such promise is there, it is for the petitioner to pursue such remedy before the respondent Bank. However, remedy if any available under the statute, will be left open. 3. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner as observed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb