IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1621 of 2008()
1. VISWAMBHARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CANARA BANK, PARANDODE BRANCH,
... Respondent
2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK,
3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
4. KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :07/08/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1621 of 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 7th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.6994 of 2008 dated 1st April, 2008.
By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has declined to entertain
the writ petition.
2. The facts in brief are: In the writ petition filed, the
petitioner had primarily questioned the proceedings initiated by the first
respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002, hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as ‘the
Securitisation Act’, since the petitioner has defaulted in payment of the
amounts due to the first respondent Bank. In the petition it is stated that
the petitioner had taken a loan from the first respondent Bank for the
purpose of commencing a brick kiln which is a unit sponsored by the 4th
respondent, Khadi and Village Industries Commission. It is further stated
that the petitioner could not continue with the business because of an
unfortunate fire accident which took place in the business premises. It is
W.A.No.1621 of 2008
2
further stated that the petitioner has approached the Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram by filing O.P.No.418 of 2003 and
the said complaint is still pending consideration by the Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum.
3. In the writ petition it is contended that till a final decision
is taken by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the Bank should be
restrained from proceeding to recover the loan amount from the petitioner
by resorting to the provisions of the Securitisation Act.
4. The learned Single Judge has taken note of all these
aspects of the matter and has come to the conclusion that the Securitization
Act does not restrain the first respondent Bank from proceeding to recover
the amount due from the petitioner merely because a complaint is pending
before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
5. Apart from this, the petitioner had approached the
Adalath for grant of some instalment facility to pay up the amounts due to
the first respondent Bank. In fact, the Adalath had granted some
instalment facility to the petitioner, but for reasons best known, the
petitioner did not comply with the orders and directions issued by the
Adalath. Even this aspect of the matter is also kept in view by the learned
Single Judge while rejecting the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
W.A.No.1621 of 2008
3
6. Having gone through the orders passed by the learned
Single Judge, we are of the firm opinion that the petitioner/appellant is not
entitled for any discretionary relief of this Court in a petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. Accordingly, while confirming the the findings and
conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge, we reject this writ
appeal.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
vns