Majeed K. v. Authorised Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/29TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 9047 of 2015 (E) --------------------------- PETITIONER:
---------- MAJEED K. AGED 42 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED (LATE) KUNIYIL VEEDU, AYYANTHODE P.O.
MANGATTIDAM, KUTHUPARAMBA KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. AUTHORISED OFFICER/DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, THE KERALA REGIONAL OFFICE, COLOMBO COMPLEX, M MJ ALI ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 680 001
2. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
KANNUR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY BRACH MANAGER.
R.M.APARTMENTS, TALAP, KANNUR - 670 002 BY SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC, KERALA STATE CO.OP BANK LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-032015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 9047 of 2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDR IN WRIT PETITION NO.3550 OF 2012 P2 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.02.2015. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NI //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smv
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 9047 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who had availed of a loan from the respondent bank, defaulted in re-payment of the same. Consequently, the respondent bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act', against the petitioner.
2. When the bank had earlier initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner approached this Court through W.P.(C) No.3550 of 2012. On that occasion, this Court, by Ext.P1 judgment had permitted the petitioner to discharge his liability in twelve equal monthly installments. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not comply with the direction in Ext.P1 judgment.
3. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that the present writ petition, which seeks substantially the same relief as
W.P.(C) No. 9047 of 2015 earlier sought for by the petitioner, cannot be maintained at the instance of the petitioner. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE //true copy// P.A to Judge smv