IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1053 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S.KAIKARA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,A.ABDUL SALAM, KAITHAVARAM BUNGALOW, KANKATHUMUKKU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE SMT.SANDHYA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SOUTH INDIAN BANK,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTH INDIAN BANK, S.I.B. HOUSE,T.B.ROAD,THRISSUR-1. 2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTH INDIAN BANK, S.I.B.HOUSE, T.B.ROAD,THRISSUR. 3. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,CREDIT DEPARTMENT SOUTH INDIAN BANK, P.B.NO.28,THRISSUR-680001. 4. CHIEF MANAGER,SOUTH INDIAN BANK, BISHOP JEROME NAGAR, CHINNAKKADA KOLLAM. 5. AUTHORISED OFFICER,SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, HOTEL SAFA INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MALAYALA MANORAMA ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BAN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 1053 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank. 2. Two complaints are raised by the petitioner. Firstly, it is contended that this court directed by Ext.P8 to reconsider the request for restructure of the credit facility. Ext.P9 dated 4.12.2008 purports to be the decision on the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out Clause 4.2.4 of Ext.P4 to contend that the petitioner is entitled to restructure. It is pointed out that the Bank has a statutory duty and the Bank has to act in a fair manner. He also submits that there is a prayer for the benefit of one time settlement scheme, which involves, no doubt permission to sell the mortgage properties. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to Section 13(13) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, which, he points out, enables the debtor to sell the mortgage property with the consent of the creditor and the consent, which is sought in Ext.P10 is therefore with the support of the statute. WPC.1053/2009. 2 3. Learned Standing Counsel Sri. George Varghese would point out that Ext.P9 is not even challenged. Regarding Ext.P10, it is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that Ext.P10 is dated 29.12.2008 and the writ petition is filed on 31.12.2008. Therefore, the writ petition is filed within two days after the filing of the representation and a mandamus is sought to consider the same. However, learned counsel for the respondent Bank would submit that the Bank, if it has received the representation, will take a decision in the matter within a period of two weeks from today. In the light of this, I record the submission of the learned Standing Counsel and close this writ petition. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb