IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 RP.No. 326 of 2011 IN WPC.35033/2010 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.35033/2010 Dated 30/03/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SULFICKER, S/O.MYTHEEN KANN, SULFICKER MANZIL, GANDHI NAGAR, ALAMCODE, PANGAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UCO BANK, OVER BRIDGE JUNCTION, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, UCO BANK, KOLLAM. 3. M/S.SRIVINDIA POLY FILMS PRIVATE LTD., TC 27/1952-1, THUMBRA LANE, CHIRAKULAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. ABDUL SALAM, KODEYIL VEEDU, SASTHAMCOTTA P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE K.VARGHESE FOR R1 AND R2 SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL FOR R4. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No. 326 of 2011 IN WPC.35033/2010 APPENDIX EXHIBITS FOR THE REVIEW PETITIONER : ANNEXURE A : COPY OF THE DEPOSIT RECEIP DATED 4.4.2011 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBITS FOR THE RESPONDENTS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- R.P.No.326 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.35033 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011. O R D E R The petitioner is seeking review of the judgment dated 30.3.2011, on the premise that he is only a guarantor to the loan transaction and that he had already deposited the entire bid amount of Rs.53 lakhs. 2. During pendency of the writ petition, it was brought to notice of this Court that, the property in question was sold in auction for a sum of Rs.53 lakhs and the 4th respondent herein, who is the bidder, has deposited 25% of the said amount. Eventhough various remittances were made by the petitioner, in compliance of interim orders issued, he had failed to comply with the condition imposed through order dated 7.3.2011 to make deposit of a sum of Rs.28 lakhs on or before 28.3.2011. It is now stated that the said amount of Rs.28 lakhs was also deposited in a Savings Bank account maintained by the 2 R.P.No.326 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.35033 of 2010 petitioner in the 1st respondent Bank itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court in directing the 1st respondent Bank to appropriate the said amount and to release the property considering the fact that the sale is not yet confirmed and the proposed bidder had deposited only 25% of the bid amount. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, who is the auction bidder, submitted that the 4th respondent is ready and willing to make deposit of the balance amount and to take over the property. According to him, the deposit was not made only because of pendency of the writ petition and because of the various interim orders issued by this Court. But I take note of the fact that even after disposal of the writ petition on 30.3.2011, the balance amount was not deposited and sale certificate was not executed. 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the borrower is the 3rd respondent Company and all 3 R.P.No.326 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.35033 of 2010 the Directors of the 3rd respondent Company are liable for payment of the amount outstanding towards the loan account. Since the petitioner is ready and willing to make payment of the bid amount, equity demands release of the property to the petitioner, is the submission. 5. Heard ; standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. It is submitted that if the petitioner remits the entire bid amount of Rs.53 lakhs, along with compensation if any payable to the auction bidder, the Bank has no objection in releasing the property to the petitioner, with liberty reserved in favour of them to recover the balance amount by proceeding against the assets of the Company as well as against all the Directors personally. 6. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that considering the change of circumstances, the review of the judgment sought for can be allowed in order to meet the ends of justice. 4 R.P.No.326 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.35033 of 2010 7. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed and judgment in W.P.(C)No.35033 of 2010 dated 30.3.2011 is hereby recalled. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/