Sachu Advaith Mohanachandran vs Chief Judicial Magistrate (Deleted)

C.S.Dias, J

The writ petition is filed to set aside the order in M.C. No.367/2022 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta.

The petitioner case is that, the respondents have illegally proceeded against the secured asset under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (in short, ‘Act’). The action of the respondents are unsustainable in law. Hence, the writ petition.

When the writ petition came up for consideration on 22.03.2023, this Court passed an interim order directing coercive proceedings to be kept in abeyance subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- on or before 24.03.2023 and a further sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, on or before 19.05.2023.

Heard; Sri.Aswin Gopakumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Paulochan Antony, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

Sri. Paulochan Antony, on instructions, submitted that, the petitioner has not complied with the above dated interim order. Moreover, the petitioner has also filed Securitisation Application No.249/2021 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam. Therefore, the petitioner may be relegated to exhaust his statutory remedies.

The  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  in  South Indian  Bank  Ltd  vs.  Naveen  Mathew  Philip (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320), after adverting to a myriad of earlier judicial pronouncements rendered under the Act, has categorically declared that High Courts shall not, unless in extra ordinary circumstances, interfere with proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the interim order passed by this Court and he has already invoked his statutory remedies, I do not find any extraordinary circumstances to entertain the writ petition by exercising the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, it will be upto the petitioner to workout his statutory remedies, in accordance with law.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to workout his statutory remedies, in accordance with law.