IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29023 of 2008(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. BINEESH JOSEPH, S/O. LATE JOSEPH, KODOPARAMBIL, ARPOOKKARA EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. ROSAMMA JOSEPH, W/O LATE JOSEPH, KODOPARAMBIL, ARPOOKKARA EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. BINDU JOSEPH, W/O DOMINE XAIVER, PALAKKAD, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,(UNDER SECURITISATION & RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS & ENFORCEMENT OF SECUTIRY INTEREST ACT 2002), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOTTYAM. 2. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOTTAYAM TOWN BRANCH, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI,SC,KOTTAYAM DIST.COOP.BANK FOR RPTS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO.29023 OF 2008 (E) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners availed a loan from the second respondent. Not a pie was repaid. The account became a non-performing account and was so classified. This resulted in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and Exhibit P1 demand under Section 13(2) was issued on 13-5-2006. Non-payment of the amount has led ultimately to Exhibit P3 dated 11-9-2008, listing the property for sale on 18-10-2008 for an amount of Rs.6,22,519/- as on 2-9- 2008 and for accruals, thereafter, by fixing reserve price of Rs.15,04,000/- . The petitioners have not demonstrated, in any manner, that the amount fixed for recovery is not due from them. Except stating that they were not furnished any statement of accounts, they have not produced even the pass book and also do not contend that no pass book was issued. There is no ground to entertain any dispute on accounts, in this writ petition. 2. When Exhibit P1 was issued in 2006, the total amount shown as due was Rs.4,77,673/-. That, obviously, grew with the passage of time and has resulted now in the impugned securitisation proceedings. There is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned proceedings. The W.P.(C) No.29023/2008 - 2 - learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioners may be given an opportunity to wipe off the entire outstandings and avert the sale since, according to them, the property is worth much more than the reserve price fixed in Exhibit P3. It is also stated by the learned counsel on either side that after creating the mortgage in favour of the second respondent, it is shown by a third party that the petitioners have executed an agreement for sale and that the said vendee has filed a suit before the Civil Court for specific performance of that agreement. For the foregoing reasons, while repelling all other contentions, it is ordered directing that if the petitioners deposit an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs within a period of one week and continue to deposit amounts at the rate of of rupees one lakh per month, the impugned distress action will be withheld and dropped on satisfaction. If there is default in remitting any of the instalments as afore-directed, the benefit of this judgment will stand recalled automatically and the respondents will be at liberty to forthwith proceed with further recovery action. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/15/10