IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10454 of 2009(B)
1. SINDHU JOSE,W/O.JOSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND
3. M/S.STUDIO 21,A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN
4. MR.S.SUNNY,S/O.SATHYANESAN,
5. ANNAMMA SUNNY,W/O.S.SUNNY,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.VINOD
For Respondent :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :03/04/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.10454 of 2009-B
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009.
JUDGMENT
1.Notice to respondents 3 to 5 dispensed with
preserving their right to move for review of this
judgment, if aggrieved.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned standing counsel for respondents 1
and 2.
The petitioner and two others constituted a firm
and commenced a business. It is stated that the
petitioner’s property was offered as collateral
security. On default in payment of the total
outstandings which, according to the petitioner,
has now come to around Rs.20 lakhs with add ons,
WP(C)10454/09 -: 2 :-
on the basis of the notice issued under the
SARFAESI Act, action has been taken for
dispossession and sale. The petitioner accuses
the other two for having swindled and having
defrauded the petitioner. It is stated that the
petitioner has taken over establishment and she
would be able to wipe off the outstandings. As
against the total outstandings, if the petitioner
would pay an amount of Rs.8 lakhs before the
court closes for mid-summer, having regard to the
fact that the arrears were put for distress
action during the previous financial year, it was
thought that the petitioner could have an order
in her favour. But, she does not admit to be
capable of generating those funds. This writ
petition is hence ordered directing that if the
petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.8 lakhs with
the bank on or before 8.4.2009, the bank will
consider giving her a few instalments to pay off
the remaining outstandings and regularize the
transaction. This judgment will not preclude the
petitioner from seeking relief before the DRT
WP(C)10454/09 -: 3 :-
under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. All other
issues are left open.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/060409