IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27793 of 2010(Y)
1. SURENDRA BABU,'VANDANAM',P.O.KIZHOOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,CANARA BANK,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.E.A.BIJUMON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :13/09/2010
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
-------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 27793 OF 2010
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
Consequent to default committed in repayment of a
housing loan availed by the petitioner from the
respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was
initiated. When steps as contemplated under Section 14
(1) of the Act was initiated, the petitioner had invoked the
remedy as provided under Section 17(1) and an
application was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal
as S.A. No. 141/2010. An interim order was issued by
that Tribunal on 19.02.2010, as per Ext.P3, imposing
condition on the petitioner to make deposit of a sum of
Rs.3 lakhs on or before 27.03.2010. It is noticed that as
per Ext.P5 order dated 05.08.2010 the time for complying
with the condition was subsequently extended till
03.09.2010. According to the petitioner he is not in a
2
WP(C) No. 27793/2010
position to comply with the condition imposed under
Exts.P3 and P5. The petitioner is approaching this Court
when coercive steps for sale of the movable property was
proposed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Bank submitted that the petitioner had approached the
Tribunal on different occasions seeking modifications/
extension of time with respect to the interim order, and
inspite of indulgence shown by the Tribunal he had failed to
comply with the conditions stipulated. It is further stated
that the Bank had already approached the Chief Judicial
Magistrate invoking Section 14(1) of the Act.
3. It is evident that the petitioner had already
approached the appellate authority challenging proceedings
initiated under the SARFAESI Act, and the appeal is
pending disposal before the Tribunal. It is evident that
exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested on that
Tribunal interim orders were already issued on different
3
WP(C) No. 27793/2010
occasions. Under such circumstances, I do not find any
merit in this Writ Petition to interfere with any such orders
as it could not be said that there is any erroneous exercise
of jurisdiction by the Tribunal. I am not convinced to hold
that the conditions imposed by the Tribunal is per se illegal,
arbitrary or unreasonable. However, it is for the petitioner
to seek appropriate relief from the Tribunal itself if he is
finding it difficult to comply with the condition. It will be
highly improper for this Court to interfere in any manner
and to impose any conditions for restraining coercive steps,
when the matter is in seizin of the Tribunal.
4. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition
is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek
appropriate remedies either from the Debt Recovery
Tribunal or from the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, as
the case may be.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
dnc