VISWAMBARAN v. THE MANAGER

S. Siri Jagan, J.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=W. P (C) No. 27127 of 2008=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Dated this, the 5th September, 2008.J U D G M E N TThe petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 . He seeks time to pay the amounts. This is stoutly opposed by the standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2. He points out that earlier, the petitioner's son had approached this Courtchallenging the very same proceedings in which this Court had permitted payment in instalments. The same has not been complied with, is the contention raised. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, that is not binding on the petitioner in so far as thepetitioner's right in the security interest is under threat. 2. I am exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has no case that he and his son are estranged. That being so, after the son having approached this Court and obtained orders, thereafter, the father cannot come with another writ petition for the same purpose. In any event, it is settled law that proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 has to be challenged before the Debt RecoveryTribunal as per the provisions of the Act itself, In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petitionis dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/[True copy]P.S to Judge.