IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20274 of 2009(D)
1. SONY THOMAS, KULANGARA HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF
3. ANIL THOMAS, KULANGARA HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.DEEPAK
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :20/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 20274 of 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 20th day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the guarantor to the three different loan
transactions availed by the 3rd respondent, who is none other than the
brother of the petitioner. The third respondent/borrower could not repay
the due amount in time, which made the respondent Bank to proceed
with the steps under SARFAESI Act. This was sought to be intercepted
by filing W.P.(C) No. 25588 of 2008 by the 3rd respondent, which
culminated in Ext.P1 judgment, whereby the petitioner therein (3rd
respondent herein) was permitted to clear the outstanding liability, as
specified therein, by way of 5 equal monthly installments. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that, eventhough two loan accounts
were closed pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, the third loan transaction is
still remaining, as the borrower did not clear the liability.
2. Met with the said circumstances, the petitioner/brother of the
3rd respondent has come forward this Court, stating that he is prepared
to satisfy the liability towards the Bank, for which necessary
arrangements have been effected identifying the prospective
purchasers for the property by way of ‘private sale’ as contemplated
under the relevant provisions of law. Necessary sanction of the Bank
has also been sought for by filing Ext.P8 representation jointly by the
WP (C) No. 20274 of 2009
: 2 :
petitioner and the third respondent before the Bank and similarly,
Ext.P9 representation has been submitted by the prospective
purchaser as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
the limited prayer in the present Writ Petition, is for a direction to
consider Exts. P8 and P9 to have the matter finalized.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank
as well.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not
find it necessary to issue any notice to the 3rd respondent or to direct
the petitioner to implead the prospective purchaser, for the time being.
The respondent Bank is hereby directed to consider Exts. P8 and P9
representations, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders
thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This
exercise shall be pursued within one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till such appropriate orders
are passed on Exts. P8 and P9, the coercive proceedings, stated as
being pursued against the third respondent, shall be kept in abeyance.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd