K. Kunjumol Babu vs The Area Manager on 21 May, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7274 of 2007(N)


1. K. KUNJUMOL BABU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE AREA MANAGER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.S.KALKURA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :21/05/2009

 O R D E R
                                   S. Siri Jagan, J.
                  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                           W. P (C) No. 7274 of 2007
                  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                       Dated this, the 21st May, 2009.

                                  J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is challenging proceedings under the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 initiated by the

respondents for coercive recovery of loan amounts due from the

petitioner to the respondents.

2. In this writ petition, this Court passed the following interim

orders:

“There will be interim stay as prayed for, for a period of one
month on condition that the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.
1,25,000/- (rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only) on or
before 29-3-2007.

5-3-2007.

xx xx xx

Interim stay extended till 2-7-2007 on condition that the
petitioner pays a further amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two
lakhs only) within one month from today.

10-4-2007.

xx xx xx

Interim order is extended for a period of six months on condition that the
petitioner deposits further amounts at the rate of Rupees One Lakh per month, payable
on or before 20th of every month, commencing from September 2007. If there is
default in remitting any such instalment, this order will stand vacated automatically.

14-8-2007″

3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

petitioner has not paid the amounts as directed in the interim orders.

As such, the petitioner is not entitled to any further indulgence in the

W.P.C. No. 7274/2007 -: 2 :-

matter. In any event, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the

proceedings under the Act, the petitioner’s remedy lies in either

filing objection to the Section 13(2) notice or if order has been

passed under Section 13(4), by challenging the same before the Debt

Recovery Tribunal in an appeal as provided under the Act.

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/

[True copy]

P.S to Judge.