A.Sumesh Kumar vs Repco Bank (Government Of India on 6 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 111 of 2009()


1. A.SUMESH KUMAR,S/O.APPUKUTTAN ASAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. REPCO BANK (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,REPCO BANK,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :06/02/2009

 O R D E R
                        S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                ------------------------------------
                      R.P.NO.111 OF 2009
                                 IN
                   W.P.(C)No.3793 OF 2008
              ----------------------------------------
              Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009

                             ORDER

The petitioner is a defaulter in re-payment of loan amounts

due from the petitioner to the respondents. Proceedings have

been initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

for coercive recovery of the amounts due. An interim order was

granted by this Court on condition that the petitioner deposits

amount at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month, payable on or

before the 15th of every month commencing from February, 2008

without fail. The petitioner did not pay the instalments as

directed, except two instalments. Accordingly, when the writ

petition came up on 18.8.2008, I vacated the interim order, since

the petitioner has not complied with the conditions of the interim

order. Again, the matter came up on 28.8.2008, when I

dismissed the writ petition itself relegating the petitioner to the

alternate remedy by way of appeal. The petitioner has now filed

R.P.No.111/09 2

the review petition against that judgment. I directed the

learned counsel for the bank to obtain instructions from the

bank. Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned

counsel for the bank has offered that if the petitioner pays the

entire amounts due within one month, they are prepared to

accept the same. The petitioner is not in a position to accept

that offer also.

In the above circumstances, the Review Petition was

heard on merits. As far as the judgment was on merits

relegating the petitioner to the remedy by way of appeal, I do

not think that any review petition is maintainable against that

judgment. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd

R.P.No.111/09 3