IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36597 of 2009(T)
1. GEORGEKUTTY ABRAHAM, ANITHOTTATHIL (H)
... Petitioner
2. LIXI GEORGEKUTTY, ANITHOTTATHIL (H),
3. THRESSIAMMA ABRAHAM, ANITHOTTATHIL(H)
Vs
1. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK
... Respondent
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :18/02/2010
O R D E R
P.R RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-------------------------
W.P (C) No.36597 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 18th February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are challenging the steps taken by
the respondents Bank invoking the machinery under the
SARFEASI Act for realisation of the amount due from the
petitioners. When the matter came up for admission
before this Court on 17.12.2009, the coercive steps were
intercepted, on condition that the petitioners deposited a
sum of Rs.4 lakhs on or before 8.1.2010. On 2.2.2010,
the matter was adjourned by two weeks, at the instance of
the learned counsel for the petitioners, to ascertain
whether the condition imposed by this Court was satisfied
or not. There is no case for the petitioners even today,
that the condition has been satisfied and that the matter
has to be examined by this Court on merits.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank
submits that the ‘Sale’ of the property in question , over
which security interest was created by the petitioners is
already over and if at all the petitioners are aggrieved in
W.P (C) No.36597 of 2009
2
any manner, there is an effective alternative remedy
provided under the statute.
3. In the above circumstances, particularly when
the petitioners have failed to honour the condition imposed
by this Court, it does not appears to be a fit case calling for
interference of this Court invoking the discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, interference is declined and the writ
petition is dismissed; however without prejudice to the
right of the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedy
available. The petitioners are also at liberty to approach
the Bank for appropriate reliefs, including OTS or for
some or other concession/allowance, if any.
P.R RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
ma
W.P (C) No.36597 of 2009
3
W.P (C) No.36597 of 2009
4