IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30136 of 2010(N)
1. BRUCE BABU, AZHEEKKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHIEF MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :19/11/2010
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
-------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 30136 OF 2010
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is under
challenge in this Writ Petition. Consequent to default
committed by the petitioner in repayment of loan availed
from the respondent Bank, the immovable property which
is the secured asset was proceeded against. Invoking
provisions contained under Section 14 (1), the respondent
had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and
an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take over
possession of the property.
2. According to the petitioner, he had approached
the Bank expressing willingness to close the loan account
within a period of six months. But coercive steps were
proceeded without accepting such request. Hence the
Writ Petition is filed seeking interference by this Court.
2
WP(C) No. 30136/2010
3. As a gesture of indulgence this Court granted an
interim stay against dispossession, subject to condition of
the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.3 lakhs within one
month from 30.09.2010. Subsequently the petitioner filed
an interlocutory application seeking extension of time for
compliance of the stipulations. Time for payment was
extended till 18.11.2010. It is submitted that the petitioner
has not complied with the conditions stipulated, till date.
4. Taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati
Tondon and others [2010 (8) SCC 110]. It is not proper
on the part of this Court to stay the proceedings initiated
under the SARFAESI Act in a writ petition filed, without
invoking the statutory remedy available under Section 17
(1). Therefore I am not inclined to entertain this Writ
Petition, any further. However rights if any available to the
petitioner to invoke the statutory remedy can be left open.
4. Therefore the Writ Petition is dismissed without
3
WP(C) No. 30136/2010
prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to
invoke the statutory remedy before the appropriate
authority.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
dnc