IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11453 of 2010(F) -------------------------- UNRSA.1551/2009 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.A.THOMAS,AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY,PROP.M/S.PAI TRADING CO.,P.O.VELLARKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CANARA BANK,REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,P.B.NO.18,KUNNAMKULAM-680503, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. BY SC SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 11453 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition imposed by the DRT vide Ext.P7 directing to satisfy a sum of Rs.7.5 Lakhs on or before 31/3/2010 so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of Ext.P1 S.A preferred by the petitioner. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to direct the DRT to finalise Ext.P1 Security Application expressing willingness to deposit a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs within one month. 2. The learned counsel for the Bank submits on instructions that the total outstanding liability will be nearly Rs.14,95,835/- plus interest and other charges thereon from 1/11/2009 as shown in Ext. P5 . Obviously, the petitioner has approached the DRT by filing S.A. 1551/2009 and this being the position, there cannot be any parallel exercise by way of Writ Petition under Article 226 as well. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interference is sought for also by exercising the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. This WPC NO. 11453/2010 -2- Court does not find it as a fit case so as to interfere with Ext.P7 under any circumstances, but for relegating the petitioner to avail statutory remedies if aggrieved in any manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner might be permitted to clear the entire outstanding liability by way of 'six' equal monthly instalments. It is also submitted that the petitioner does not intend to press Ext.P1 any further and that the said application will be caused to be withdrawn, so as to avail the benefit of instalments. 4. After hearing both sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the liability in a phased manner, in view of the undertaking that the petitioner does not intend to press any other relief. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability by way of 'six' equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before 30/4/2010 and the remaining instalments shall be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, all recovery proceedings initiated by the bank shall be kept in abeyance. 5. It is also made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in complying with the above directions, the WPC NO. 11453/2010 -3- respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the due amount from the petitioner by invoking the remedy available under the Act. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. dpk