IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30937 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M/S.IDEAL POWERTECH LTD.,43/1905, NETHAJI NAGAR, COCHIN 20, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. MR.THOMAS EASAW, 43/1905, NETHAJI NAGAR, COCHIN 20. 3. MR.GRACE THOMAS, 43/1905, NETHAJI NAGAR, COCHIN 20. 4. MR.MATHAI EASAW, 43/1905, NETHAJI NAGAR, COCHIN 20. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, STATE BANK OF INDIA 40/974, 2ND FLOOR, RS BLDG.(ABOVE SSI BRANCH), M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 011. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 011. ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 30937 OF 2008 G ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Ext.P5 sale notice, petitioners have preferred application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The DRT granted stay of all further proceedings on the finding that there is a prima facie case. However, it is directed that the petitioners should deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs before 27.10.2008 and also another sum of Rs.2 lakhs before 12.11.2008. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel. Counter affidavit is also filed. Learned counsel for petitioners does not dispute that the Tribunal has the power to impose a condition such as imposed. But, he would submit that in the facts of this case, it is not warranted. I am considering the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution. Having regard to the amount that is directed to be deposited it amount only 10% of the total due. I WPC.30937/08 : 2 : do not think that the petitioners have made out a case for interference. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order, they have further right of appeal under section 18 of the Act. This being a writ proceeding, I decline the jurisdiction. However, I make it clear that it will not stand in the way of the petitioners approaching the appellate authority if the petitioners are so advised. In the facts of this case, time for payment of the first instalment is extended till 30.10.2008. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE