The failure to comply with deposit conditions in a writ petition results in the lack of entitlement to relief from coercive actions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner obtained certain credit facility from the respondent bank, and when repayment was defaulted, coercive proceedings were initiated as evidenced by Ext.P1 under the provisions of Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court through the captioned writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to provide instalment facility.

2. I have Heard Sri.V.Visal Ajayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Mohan Jacob George, learned counsel for the respondent bank.

3. While admitting the writ petition on 23.02.2023, the petitioner was directed to make a deposit of Rs.8 lakhs as a condition for stay on or before 30.03.2023. The learned counsel for the respondent bank states that only an amount of Rs.5 lakhs has been remitted, which submission is endorsed by the learned counsel for the petitioner also. However, he would state that an application seeking extension of time has been filed as I.A. No.1/2023. But, apart from filing the afore application, the same has not been moved before this Court till date.

4. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition.

5. However, taking note of the fact that the afore Interlocutory Application has been pending for around three years, the petitioner is permitted to file an appropriate application seeking instalment facility before the respondent bank. If such an application is filed, the respondent bank shall consider the same and extend six instalments for clearing the entire arrears.

This writ petition would stand disposed of as above.

Sd/-