IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19777 of 2008(D)
1. C.P.MOHAMMAD KUTTY, S/O.C.P.MOIDEEN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CATHOLIC SYRIAN
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CATHOLIC SYRIAN
3. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED,
4. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :02/07/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.19777 OF 2008(D)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The third respondent is a scheduled bank. The first
respondent is its Board of Directors and the second respondent is
the Branch Manager of one of its Branches.
2. The Bank has resorted to recovery under the RDB Act.
The petitioner/debtor thereunder seeks to avoid the sale of the
attached property. His plea is that there was a settlement between
parties, however that, he could not comply with the conditions
therein and that, as of now, he is prepared to pay the amounts
covered by the settlement, if the Board of Directors of the Bank is
willing to consider his request for such reliefs.
3. The learned counsel for the bank points out that the
recovery order was not subjected to any appeal and it, having
become final, it is impermissible for the petitioner to seek
intervention of this Court in writ jurisdiction. It is urged that the
W.P.(C) No.19777/2008
– 2 –
conduct of the petitioner, by itself, does not inspire confidence to
generate any further ameliorative steps from the bank by way of
consideration of any request, particularly, because that the
understanding reached at about two years ago was not acted
upon by the petitioner. It is also pointed out that if the petitioner
has any bonafide stand, he can move the appropriate authority
under the RDB Act for further enlargement of time. It is also
specifically pointed out that a writ may not be issued as bank is
not ‘state’ for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India, at any rate, when the transaction is in the realm of private
contract between the lender and debtor.
4. The objections of the bank are quite unsustainable and
the adjournment of the case on the previous day was only to
ascertain the dues of the petitioner. In that regard, the bank was
asked as to whether it would consider the request of the
petitioner, if he is ready to pay off an amount of Rs.15 lakhs for
averting the sale, as of now. However, this is not acceptable to
the bank, as is represented through its learned counsel.
W.P.(C) No.19777/2008
– 3 –
In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the
petitioner and leaving open all the contentions of the writ
petitioner and the bank.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
skr/3-7-08
// True copy //
P.A. to Judge.