The petitioner and her husband availed different loans from the respondent Bank, creating security interest over the property in question. Admittedly, because of the default, the Account was declared as 'N.P.A.' and the Bank proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the writ petition.
2. It is pointed out that, sale of the property is scheduled to be held today as notified vide Ext.P1. Prayer is to permit the petitioner to discharge the entire liability by way of '15' equal monthly instalments.
3. Pursuant to notice on admission ordered by this Court, the respondent Bank has entered appearance. The relief sought for is vehemently opposed from the part of the Bank, pointing out that the petitioner and her husband had approached this Court on several occasions earlier and relief was obtained. In spite of the opportunity given by this Court, the opportunity was not utilised and the due amount was not satisfied. Filing of the above writ petitions has not been mentioned anywhere in the writ petition. Copy of all the relevant judgments are placed for perusal of this Court. It is seen that, the husband of the petitioner had approached this Court earlier, by filing WP(C) No.9602 of 2010. On the basis of submission made across the Bar that the petitioner was relinquishing all the challenges against the proceedings and that there was no intent to avail the statutory remedy, but for the prayer to enable the petitioner to satisfy the entire liability by way of reasonable instalments, the said writ petition was disposed of as per judgment dated 06.10.2010, permitting the petitioner to wipe off the entire liability by way of 'five' equal monthly instalments, beginning from 31.10.2010, also incorporating 'default clause' enabling the respondent Bank to proceed with further steps, if there was any failure on the part of the said petitioner in discharging the liability.
4. The husband of the petitioner approached this Court again by filing WP(C) No.34597 of 2010, presumably in view of the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act because of the failure, in giving effect to the earlier verdict. An interim order was passed by this Court on 19.11.2010, directing the petitioner to satisfy a sum of Rupees Five lakhs within 'three weeks', which was not complied with. When the case was called up on 15.12.2010, there was no representation and the writ petition was dismissed for default.
5. Then, it was the turn of the petitioner to approach this Court by filing WP(C) No.27061 of 2012, raising almost similar contentions, referring to the fact that four different loans were there and that the total outstanding liability was nearly Rs.34,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty four lakhs only). Considering the limited extent of relief sought for, to permit to liquidate the liability by way of instalments, the writ petition was disposed of as per judgment dated 21.11.2012, directing the petitioner to satisfy a sum of Rupees Five lakhs on or before 08.12.2012 and the balance by way of 'eight' equal monthly instalments, beginning from 05.01.2013 onwards, making it clear that in case of any default, the Bank would be free to proceed with further steps.
6. Cases were being filed and verdicts were being obtained only to perpetuate the default, as evident from the next case filed by the petitioner as WP(C) No.11899 of 2013. Here also, considering the prayer for permitting the petitioner to satisfy the due amount by way of instalments, such relief was granted permitting the petitioner to clear the entire outstanding liability by way of 'six' equal monthly instalments beginning from 01.07.2013. Admittedly, there occurred default again and now the petitioner has approached this Court, raising almost similar contentions and prayers, absolutely mentioning nothing about the earlier rounds of litigations anywhere in the writ petition and even showing the temerity in the affidavit in support of the writ petition, stating that the petitioner has not filed any other writ petition, involving similar relief before this Court or any other Court.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner pleads ignorance as to the course and events, stating that he is new to the arrena.
8. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the course pursued by the petitioner and her husband cannot but be deprecated in the strongest possible words. Though, this is a fit case to take 'suo motu' contempt against the petitioner in view of the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in 1995 (3) SCC 757
(Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Hariyana), this Court spares the petitioner, who is a lady, for the time being, but for dismissing the writ petition with a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only), which shall be paid to the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre within 'one month', failing which it will be open for the Registrar General to issue necessary proceedings to enable the beneficiary, to recover the due amount.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
A copy of this judgment shall be delivered to the Director, Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Ernakulam.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp