WP(C) No. 17402 of 2012 · Kerala High Court

WP(C).No. 17402 of 2012 (A) EXT.P5A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF FORCLOSURE DATED 16-5-2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.EXT.P6A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND MR.IBRAHIM RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.//TRUE COPY//P.A. TO JUDGEBP P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.---------------------------------------W.P.(C). No.17402 of 2012 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 25th day of July, 2012JUDGMENT The petitioner is seeking the interference of this Court with regard to the steps being pursued at the instance of respondent by resorting to the remedy under the SARFAESI Act for realization of the amount stated as due under the housing loan availed by the petitioner.

The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that, the petitioner availed a housing loan to the tune ofRs. 12 lakhs (Rupees twelve lakhs) in the year 2007, on the strength of the security interest created over the property in question. Admittedly, the petitioner turned to be a defaulter and the account was declared as NPA and the respondent proceed with the steps under the SARFAESI Act, when the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.30162/2011. As per the interim order passed by this Court on 22.11.2011 inI.A.No.18698/2011, the coercive proceedings were intercepted on condition that the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakhs) within one week.

Subsequently, it was observed on 09.04.2012 that the condition imposed by this Court was never complied with and as W.P.C. No. 17402 of 2012-2-such, it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to have any further indulgence from this Court. Observing that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India was not liable to be invoked in the circumstances and that the remedy of the petitioner was elsewhere, by way of appeal before the DRT, as provided under the statute, interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.P4judgment.

The petitioner has now approached this Court again, pointing out that a prospective purchaser has turned up and in the said circumstance, the petitioner might be permitted to proceed with the steps for 'private sale' and to intercept the adverse proceedings being pursued in the meanwhile. Afterhearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and also taking note of the culmination of the proceedings in the earlier round of litigation vide Ext.P4 judgment, this Court finds that no interference is warranted in this writ petition. It is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.Kp/-