IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 35998 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. AJITH K.S., S/O. LATE SEKHARAN, KOONAMPLACKAL, HOUSE, CHERAD, MALAMPUZHA P.O., PALGHAT DIST. 2. ANOOP K.S., S/O. LATE SEKHARAN, KOONAMPLACKAL HOUSE, CHERAD, MALAMPUZHA P.O., PALGHAT DIST. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REG. OFFICE ALWAYE KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R3. M.C. SIVANADHAN, S/O. CHANRAMEY, MELEVEDU, ANAPPARA, KOTTEKAD, PALAKKAD. (*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.01.2010 IN I.A.NO. 230 OF 2010). R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) BY ADV. SRI.P.R.MILTON R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. ADDL. R3 BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 37302 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.( C) Nos. 35998 & 37302 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 30th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are challenging the recovery proceedings pursued by the respondent Bank invoking the machinery under the SARFAESI Act for realisaion of the amount stated as due from them under two loans obtained, creating security interest over two different items of properties. The loans were availed in connecton with the business, which however could not be repaid because of the sudden downfall in the business and some unforeseen circumstances, when the bank declared the account of the petitioners as 'NPA' and proceeded with further steps. 2. In the course of the proceedings, the properties were sold in public auction to the additional third respondent, who was subsequently impleaded as per the order dated 07.01.2010 in I.A. No. 233 of 2010. 3. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition W.P.( C) Nos. 35998 & 37302 OF 2009 2 challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank. However, during the course of the proceedings , the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were intending to have the matter settled somehow or other, though it did not materialise in the desired manner. The learned Counsel for the Addl. 3rd respondent also brought it to the notice of this Court that the said respondent has satisfied the entire sale price and that if the petitioners were ready and willing to repay the same with reasonable interest, the Addl. 3rd respondent was prepared to forego his rights and interest pursuant to the public auction held by the Bank. 4. Even though several adjournments were granted to the petitioners to work out the solution, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has now conceded that nothing positive has happened and that the petitioners are not in a position to satisfy the entire liability towards the Addl.3rd respondent or to the Bank in this regard. This being the position, this Court finds that this is not a fit case to interfere with the sale proceedings pursued by the bank by invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 W.P.( C) Nos. 35998 & 37302 OF 2009 3 of the Constitution. 5. In the above circumstances, interference is declined, without expressing anything on the merits of the case as to the sustainability of the steps taken by the Bank and it will be open to the petitioners to challenge the same, if they are aggreived in any manner by resorting to the remedy available under the statute . 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also brought it to the notice of this Court that there is already an interim order of stay passed by this Court on 22.12.2009 in W.P.(C) 37302 of 2009 directing the petitioners to satisfy a sum of Rs. One lakh. Similary the proceedings were intercepted in the other case (W.P.(C) No. 35998 of 2009) as well, vide interim order dated 14.12.2009 directing the petitioners to deposit Rs.1.5 lakhs on or before 31.12.2009. The learned Counsel submits that eventhough the petitioners had gone to the Bank to deposit the amounts as directed, it was not accepted by the Bank, which is vehemently opposed from the part of the Bank, stating that the Bank was not aware of the interim order and that the sale W.P.( C) Nos. 35998 & 37302 OF 2009 4 proceedings were finalised. In any view of the matter, non- satisfaction of the condition will not bar the way of the petitioners in challenging the sale proceedings, if the petitioners are aggrieved in any manner as to the manner and conduct of sale, by approaching the DRT. All the contentions raised in the Writ Petitions are left open. Both the Writ Petitions are dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk