IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3913 of 2010(L)
1. BOBY JACOB, AGED 36,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.CANARA BANK, TEMPLE ROAD BRANCH,
... Respondent
2. AUTHORISED OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SMT.K.V.SHENU
For Respondent :SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :24/02/2010
O R D E R
P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.3913 of 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is before this Court challenging the
steps taken by the respondents invoking the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. It is brought to light on the part of the petitioner
himself that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by
filing W.P.(C) No.21053 of 2009 which culminated in Ext.P3
judgment whereby the petitioner was permitted to clear the entire
outstanding liability by eight monthly instalments, the first of
which of Rs.10,00,000/- was to be effected on or before 31st
August, 2009 to be followed by six similar instalments to be
effected on or before 30th of the succeeding months, making it
clear that the last instalment will constitute only such amount
WPC(No)3913 of 2010
2
required to top up the figure, to clear the outstanding liability. It
is the case of the petitioner that even though some payments
were effected by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, the
respondent Bank has furnished Ext.P4 statement of account in
response to the requisition made by the petitioner in this regard,
which however is not correct or proper, according to the
petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has already remitted a
sum of Rs.25 lakhs as borne out by Ext.P5 receipt dated
1.2.2010. In short, accuracy of the facts and figures as to the
outstanding liability forms the pivotal point of dispute in the
present writ petition.
3. The respondents have filed a statement projecting
the actual facts and figures and also the liability as on 1.1.2010.
The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Bank also
submits that the amount of Rs.25 lakhs paid by the petitioner as
per Ext.P5 receipt on 1.2.2010 has also been given due credit to
and the outstanding amount is Rs.26,51,199/- with future
WPC(No)3913 of 2010
3
interest from 1.1.2010.
4. Going by the facts and figures, it cannot be a
matter of dispute, that the matter has attained finality by virtue
of Ext.P3 judgment. Petitioner is bound to honour the
commitment, particularly in view of the benefit already
extended to him by way of interference as per Ext.P3. There is
absolutely no merit or bona fides in the present writ petition.
No interference is called for.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is made
clear that if any amount paid by the petitioner is not
appropriately accounted or if there is any error or omission with
regard to the calculations, the same shall be looked into and
necessary corrections shall be effected by the respondents.
P.R.Ramachandra Menon,
Judge
vns