IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17233 of 2007(B)
1. K.N.RAMACHANDRAN, MANAGING PARTNER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. VIJAYA BANK, VYTTILA BRANCH,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGIE SIMON
For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :03/08/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 17233 of 2007
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 3rd August, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is challenging proceedings initiated by the
respondents under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for recovery of
loan amounts due from the petitioner to the respondents. The
petitioner’s only contention is that he is willing to settle the matter
out of court by paying the amounts due in instalments. In view of his
readiness to pay the amounts in instalments, on 8-6-2007, this Court
passed the following interim order:
“In spite of service of notice through messenger, there is no
appearance for the respondents. Since petitioner undertakes to
remit Rs. 15 lakhs which is almost 50% of the liability due to the
Bank on the date notified for receipt of tender, there will be a
direction to the respondents not to open the tenders on the next
day in terms of the sale notice, if petitioner remits Rs. 15 lakhs on
or before 11-6-2007. Post on 13-6-2007.”
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
petitioner has not cared to pay the amounts as directed in the interim
order. That being so, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to
any further indulgence in the matter. Even otherwise, in respect of
proceedings under the Act, the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing
an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as provided under the
Act itself.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition
and accordingly the same is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/