Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 176 (KER)

B. Sathyaseelan v. State Bank of India, Kollam

2018-02-21

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. 1. The first petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner. The second petitioner along with her son availed two loans from State Bank of India. When they committed default, proceedings have been initiated by the bank against the security under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act) and the said proceedings was challenged by the second petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C).No.9045 of 2015. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court permitting the second petitioner to pay the overdue in the loan accounts in instalments. Ext.P1 is the judgment rendered by this Court in the said case. It is conceded by the petitioners that the overdue in the loan account has not been liquidated by them as permitted by this Court in terms of the judgment in W.P.(C).No.9045 of 2015. Consequently, when proceedings have been revived by the bank, the second petitioner approached this Court again by filing W.P.(C).No.12659 of 2016. It is seen that this Court has shown indulgence again in the matter and permitted the second petitioner to liquidate the overdue in instalments. Ext.P2 is the judgment in the said case. The second petitioner has not liquidated the overdue in terms of Ext.P2 judgment also. According to the petitioners, it is due to reasons beyond their control that they could not pay the overdue as permitted by this Court. It is stated that the property mortgaged by the second petitioner is now put to sale in furtherance to the proceedings under the Act. The sale notice issued by the bank, viz, Ext.P13, is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the bank. 3. As noted above, the earlier writ petitions preferred by the petitioners challenging the proceedings under the Act have been disposed of repelling the challenge against the proceedings, in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 judgments. Ext.P13 sale notice is one issued in furtherance to the proceedings which were impugned in Exts.P1 and P2 cases. The prayer in the writ petition is virtually one for review of the judgment in W.P.(C).No.9045 of 2015. A fresh writ petition cannot be filed seeking review of the judgment in an earlier writ petition. Ext.P13 sale notice is one issued in furtherance to the proceedings which were impugned in Exts.P1 and P2 cases. The prayer in the writ petition is virtually one for review of the judgment in W.P.(C).No.9045 of 2015. A fresh writ petition cannot be filed seeking review of the judgment in an earlier writ petition. Further, the petitioners have an effective remedy against notices in the nature of Ext.P13 under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The exceptional grounds, on which this Court would entertain a writ petition against such notices, even when the parties have alternative remedies under the statutes, have not been made out by the petitioners. For all these reasons, this court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.