IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 917 of 2008(H)
1. DIVAKARAN PARAYIL, AGED 64 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. KOMALAM DIVAKARAN, AGED 58 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.,
... Respondent
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN
For Respondent :SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
----------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.917/2008
----------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the defaulters to the respondent Bank.
The Bank had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002. It is stated that the petitioners have moved
an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. According to him,
the matter now stands posted before the Debt Recovery Tribunal
on 22.1.2008. In the meanwhile the Bank had initiated steps for
sale of the property. Petitioners submit that though an appeal has
been filed is not in a position to obtain interlocutory orders from
the Debt Recovery Tribunal, since the presiding judge of the Debt
Recovery Tribunal is presently on leave and resumes sitting only
on 29.2.2008. Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that
there is absolutely no bona fides in the statement now made.
2. According to him, stay petition was filed before the Debt
Recovery Tribunal in the first week of June 2007. It is stated that
the Bank had filed its counter on 17.7.2007 and written
W.P.(C)917/2008 2
statement on 18.9.2007. It is also submitted that in the
meanwhile, the case was also posted on 25/9/2007, 11/12/2007
and now on 22.1.2008. According to the Bank, on all the
posting dates of the case, it got adjourned only because the
petitioners are unwilling to argue the matter.
3. Though the submissions made by the counsel for the
Bank is contradicted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in
view of the limited nature of the relief sought, I have no reason
to decline the relief sought for. Further, the fact remains that the
stay petition has been not heard and that the petitioners are
disabled from moving for early orders. In view of this, I feel that
some arrangements ought to be made to safeguard the interest
of both sides.
4. On the facts stated in the writ petition itself, it is seen
that after making payment of Rs.29,11,000/- towards their
liability, the petitioners handed over a cheque to the Bank for
Rs.30,89,000/- which was not accepted by the Bank. If that be
so, on facts, it is obvious that the petitioners do not have any
dispute about their liability to pay atleast Rs.30,89,000/- as
stated in paragraph-4 of the writ petition. In view of the latches
W.P.(C)917/2008 3
on the part of the petitioners and as a condition for deferring the
sale now scheduled to take place on 24.1.2008, it is only
reasonable to the petitioners to remit at least the aforesaid
amount of Rs.30,89,000/-. Therefore there will be a direction to
the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.30 lakhs (Rupees
Thirty Lakhs only) on or before 23.1.2008.
5. Subject to the remittance as above, the sale now
scheduled to take place on 24.1.2008 shall be adjourned by the
Bank and it will be held only after the Debt Recovery Tribunal
considers Ext.P6 stay petition and pass orders thereon. It is also
directed that immediately after the Debt Recovery Tribunal
resumes sitting, it will be the obligation of the petitioners to seek
appropriate orders on Ext.P6, as otherwise the Bank will be free
to continue the action which has already been initiated.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
css/