J GIREESH RAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the first respondent in C.M.P.No.3005 of 2010 of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, a proceeding initiated by the second respondent under sec.14(1) of the Securtisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the Act"). Second respondent claimed that certain amount is due from petitioner but, it has not been paid and hence action was sought under the provision referred above. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed Annexure A-2, order on 11.08.2010 granting time to the petitioner to settle the matter as petitioner requested two months' time to clear the liability. The case was called on 12.10.2010. It is recorded that on that day, petitioner was absent but, counsel sought one months' further time for settlement of the claim. That request was also allowed and the case was posted on 18.11.2010. On that day learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed Annexure A-3, order stating that petitioner was absent, there was no representation and hence an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to take possession of the vehicle. Annexure-3, order is under challenge. Learned counsel submitted that it is not correct to say that there was no representation before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 18.11.2010. It is also submitted by learned counsel that petitioner has already paid a substantial amount and the balance amount payable is only `.1,52,000/- which he is prepared to pay within four months. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is not in a financially sound position to pay the entire amount immediately. I have heard learned counsel for second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor as well.

(2.) HAVING regard to the circumstances stated, I am inclined to give petitioner four months' time to clear the liability to the second respondent.