IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 1851 of 2008(U) ------------------------- OA.195/2006 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------- JAYA BABY, AGED 38, W/O BABY CHACKO, KORATHARA HOUSE, KANNADI, PULIKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, RAIBAN SHOPPING COMPLEX, WEST OF MEDICAL COLLEGE JUNCTION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THOMAS CHACKO, KORATHARA HOUSE, KANNADADY, KAVALAM. 3. ANTONY CHACKO, KORATHARA HOUSE, KANNADADY, KAVALAM. 4. M/S VEMBANAD MODER RICE MILLS, BUILDING NO.VIII/239, KANNADY, KAVALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER THOMAS CHACKO. ADDL. 5. K.A. THOMAS, ANATHANAM HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALY. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.29.01.08 IN IA NO.1529/08) BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD SRI.SAJU JOHN R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.V. JYOTHIPRASAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 1851 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a co-obligant in a transaction whereby respondents 2 and 3 and the petitioner availed certain loan facility from the 1st respondent. This led to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act with 4th respondent ultimately buying the property in auction. At the stage of consideration of this writ petition it was pointed out that the presiding officer is not available in the DRT and that therefore the petitioner may be given a breathing time to work out a possibility to retrieve item No.2 from the list of properties brought for sale by settling the transaction with the Bank and also the auction purchaser. It was accordingly that an interim order was granted on 15.01.08 granting stay of dis- possession of item No.2 in Ext.P2. On 29.01.08, it was submitted by the counsel for parties, except the 1st respondent Bank, that they would consider negotiating and settling the transaction and as a last chance, the interim order of stay granted on 15.01.08 was extended by three weeks. As of now, the 5th respondent, auction purchaser has come on record saying that there could not be any WPC No. 1851 OF 2008 2 settlement. Obviously therefore, the parties have to work out their remedies before the DRT in accordance with law, if appropriate proceedings are initiated and if the DRT entertains the same. Without prejudice to such right, this Writ Petition is only to be closed. However, learned counsel for the 1st respondent Bank expressed apprehension that issuance of interim order in this case would weigh with the Tribunal while considering the interim relief and also final relief in any proceedings which the petitioner may initiate under the SARFAESI Act. It has already been clarified that the interim order was issued only because there was an attempt to negotiate and settle the transaction out of court. Obviously that would not weigh either way, in the consideration of the petitioner's case on its merits. With such clarification, this Writ Petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE ttb WPC No. 1851 OF 2008 3 WPC No. 1851 OF 2008 4