Johnson M.R v. The Manager
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/6TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 9890 of 2015 (I) --------------------------- PETITIONER :
--------------------- JOHNSON M.R., S/O. RAPPAI, MUZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE CHOVOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN - 680 027.
BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S) :
---------------------------- 1.
THE MANAGER THE TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK CHEVOOR BRANCH, CHURCH ROAD CHEVOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 027.
2.
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER THE TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.86, MISSION QUARTER, THRISSUR PIN - 680 001.
3.
JAISON M.J., S/O. JOHNSON M.R., MUZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE CHOVOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN - 680 027.
4.
JOSHWA M.J., S/O. JOHNSON M.R., MUZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE CHOVOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN - 680 027.
R1& R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn ...2/-
WP(C).No. 9890 of 2015 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3-7-2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 10865/2014.
EXT.P2 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF LOAN PASS BOOK.
EXT.P3 COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 23-2-2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
................................................. ............................................... Dated this the 27th day of March, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who has approached this Court challenging revenue recovery steps initiated by the respondent Bank for sale of the secured assets for realisation of the defaulted loan amounts in terms of Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, is a person who had already approached this Court, seeking an identical relief.
2. By Ext.P1 judgment, this Court took note of the fact that, inasmuch as the petitioner had not complied with the directions issued by this Court in an interim order, the petitioner was not entitled to the discretionary relief of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, by Ext.P1 judgment, the said writ petition was dismissed.
3. It is in these circumstances that, the petitioner has now approached this Court through the present writ petition seeking almost identical reliefs as was earlier sought for by the petitioner. Going by the conduct of the petitioner in not complying with the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition, I am of the view that the present writ petition,
which claims substantially the same relief as already claimed on an earlier occasion, cannot be maintained at the instance of the petitioner. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE AMV/27/03/