IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 1860 of 2007(U)
1. V.SINILAL, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
2. M.K.VIJAYARAJAN, AGED 68 YEARS,
3. OMANA V.RAJAN, W/O.VIJAYARAJAN,
Vs
1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
... Respondent
2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
Dated :16/01/2007
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN, J.
--------------------------
W.P. (C) NO. 1860 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners approached this Court challenging Ext.P8 order passed
by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. As per Ext.P1, a condition was
imposed for payment of a nominal amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The
petitioners admittedly did not pay the amount. No review and no expansion
of time for payment were also sought for. The appeal was accordingly
dismissed for non-deposit. Petitioners then filed an application for
restoration but did not prosecute the same. In such circumstances, the Debt
Recovery Tribunal dismissed the present restoration application. I do not
find any error in Ext.P8 calling for any interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners
as against Ext.P8.
2. Though the petitioner challenges Ext.P5 proclamation inter alia
contending that an extent of 1.65acres of land is proposed to be sold for a
price less than the market value but no objection whatsoever has been raised
to the proclamation before the officer. The proclamation was issued as early
as on 2005. Proceedings were initiated for the sale of the property.
WPC NO.1860/07 Page numbers
Incidently, it is pointed out that the 2nd petitioner herein has filed W.P.(C)
No.16690/06 raising similar contentions. However, this Court passed an
interim order enabling the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs.
Though that was complied with, subsequently another order namely Ext.P6
(b) was passed on 4.10.2006 wherein the petitioners were required to pay a
further amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs. Petitioners have no case that the said order
has been complied with, even as on today.
In these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioners as
against Ext.P5. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Issue photocopy urgently.
P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE
vps
WPC NO.1860/07 Page numbers
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE
OP NO.
JUDGMENT
21st DECEMBER, 2006