IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10454 of 2009(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SINDHU JOSE, W/O.JOSE, THE PARTNER,STUDIO 21, CONVENT ROAD,ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT PERUMATTIL HOUSE, PULLAZHI P.O.,OLARIKKARA,TRICHUR. BY ADV. MR.K.V.VINOD. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, KALOOR BRANCH,REP.BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND ASST.GENERAL MANAGER,STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, M.G.ROAD,ERNAKULAM. 3. M/S.STUDIO 21, A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN, CONVENT ROAD,ERNAKULAM, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.S.SUNNY. 4. MR.S.SUNNY,S/O.SATHYANESAN, THE MANAGING PARTNER,STUDIO 21, RESIDING AT 30/1918 B MAMBRA ROAD, CHALIKKAVATTOM P.O.,ERNAKULAM. 5. ANNAMMA SUNNY,W/O.S.SUNNY, THE PARTNER,STUDIO 21, 30/1918 B MAMBRA ROAD, CHALIKKAVATTOM P.O.,ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.R.S.KALKURA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.10454 of 2009-B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.Notice to respondents 3 to 5 dispensed with preserving their right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner and two others constituted a firm and commenced a business. It is stated that the petitioner's property was offered as collateral security. On default in payment of the total outstandings which, according to the petitioner, has now come to around Rs.20 lakhs with add ons, WP(C)10454/09 -: 2 :- on the basis of the notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, action has been taken for dispossession and sale. The petitioner accuses the other two for having swindled and having defrauded the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has taken over establishment and she would be able to wipe off the outstandings. As against the total outstandings, if the petitioner would pay an amount of Rs.8 lakhs before the court closes for mid-summer, having regard to the fact that the arrears were put for distress action during the previous financial year, it was thought that the petitioner could have an order in her favour. But, she does not admit to be capable of generating those funds. This writ petition is hence ordered directing that if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.8 lakhs with the bank on or before 8.4.2009, the bank will consider giving her a few instalments to pay off the remaining outstandings and regularize the transaction. This judgment will not preclude the petitioner from seeking relief before the DRT WP(C)10454/09 -: 3 :- under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. All other issues are left open. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/060409