IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 836 of 2009(Y) ------------------------ OA.72/2003 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.A.KUNJUMOIDHEEN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.V.M.ALIYAR, RESIDING AT PERAL BUNGALOW, CHANDIROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, DIRECTOR M/S.INTEGRATED RUBIAN FOOD PRODUCTS AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH, WILLINGTON ISLAND KOCHI - 682 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. ADDL.3. M/S.INTEGRATED RUBIAN FOOD PRODUCTS, ARROR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. K.K.SHANU, PARTNER, RUBIAN MEAT EXPORTS, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. T.A.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, PARTNER, RUBIAN MEAT EXPORTS, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 6. C.H.A.RAHIM, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.INTEGRATED RUBIAN FOOD PRODUCTS, ARROR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. (ADDL.R3 TO R6 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 23.1.09 ON I.A.NO.578 OF 2009) R2 BY ADV.SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHUNATH R6 BY ADV.SMT.M.V.RAAVEE MOL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.836 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is the Director of a company, which is a debtor under a recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The issue raised in this writ petition under the guise of challenge to a sale proceedings resulted as per the impugned Ext.P14 is, essentially, a request of the petitioner for facility to settle the transaction on certain terms. 2. If the petitioner pays the entire amounts, there is no reason why the bank would sell the property. But, if he is trying to have the matter settled at a reduced amount, that can be only with the volition of the bank. At any rate, that cannot be by the issuance of a writ in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any further proceedings by the Recovery Officer, he has effective remedy before the DRT WPC.836/09 Page numbers and then, before the DRAT to challenge it. Even if the petitioner's request is only for time to pay, that again is a matter which can be considered either by the Recovery Officer or by the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, I do not deem it necessary for this Court to detain the parties here, particularly when the DRT, as of now, is manned by a Presiding Officer on regular basis. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to contentions. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.