IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24688 of 2010(I)
1. SATHEESH K.R
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ICICI BANK LIMITED
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
For Respondent :SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :06/08/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No.24688 of 2010-I
----------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability
of the steps taken by the respondent Bank for realisation of the
amount stated as due from the petitioner, invoking the remedy
under SARFAESI Act.
2. The course and events have been described by the
petitioner reveal that the petitioner has already filed S.A. No.134 of
2010 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and an interim order was
passed on 25.2.2010 in I.A.No.547 of 2010, granting `stay’ on
condition. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner could
not satisfy the condition and in the said circumstances, the Bank
proceeded with further steps for causing the property to be sold in
public auction, as notified in the `Mathrubhumi’ and `Malayala
Manorama’ dailies dated 29.7.2010 and 30.7.2010 respectively, as
borne by Ext.P7; which is sought to be interfered.
3. Heard the learned standing counsel for the Bank as well,
who submits on instructions, that much leniency has been shown to
the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition for extension of time
W.P(C) No.24688 of 2010-I 2
and the same was allowed. It is also brought to the notice of this
Court that the petitioner had given a `post-dated’ cheque and that
the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. The
assurance and undertaking given by the petitioner turned to be
futile and the Bank has no other alternative, but to proceed with the
steps for causing the property to be sold in public auction for
realisation of the due amount.
4. After hearing both the sides, and also in view of the
admitted fact that the petitioner has already resorted to the
alternate remedy by filing S.A.No.134 of 2010, which is still pending
consideration before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, this Court finds
that this is not a fit case to call for interference, invoking the
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Accordingly, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is
dismissed. It is made clear that nothing has been expressed by this
Court with regard to the merits of the case. This judgment also will
not stand in the way of the petitioner from approaching the Bank for
appropriate relief.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
//True Copy//