IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 18391 of 2008(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.B.MUHAMMAD BASHEER, PUTHEN PURACKAL HOUSE, KEECHERY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOR TALUK, KULAYATTIKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, COCHIN MAIN BRANCH, VI/345, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682 002 REP. BY THE CHIEF MANAGER. 2. V.RAJENDRAN, AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, COCHIN MAIN BRANCH, VI/345, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682 002. 3. M/S. HIGH RANGE INTERNATIONAL, H.NO.13/563, ATTUPURATH HOUSE, AROOR P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, LEELA SASIDHARAN. 4. MRS.ARUNAKUMARY.V.L., H.NO.13/563, ATTUPURATH HOUSE, AROOR P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. MR.SASIDHARAN, H.NO.13/563, ATTUPURATH HOUSE, AROOR P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1. BY ADV. SRI. A.S.P. KURUP, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.18391 of 2008-M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the guarantor for a facility availed in connection with a business transaction. The petitioner states that he had paid certain amounts and had made Ext.P5 representation requiring consideration of an offer for settling the outstandings by reducing the total accruals. The learned counsel for the bank points out that the other co-guarantors and sureties had earlier filed other writ petitions and obtained certain orders even during the pendency of this writ petition. Whatever that be, all that the petitioner now states is that if Ext.P5 representation is considered, he may get certain benefits. Since the petitioner has made certain deposits, though WP(C)18391/2008 -: 2 :- the co-applicant had not, it is appropriate that this Court does not finally state on the merits of the claim of the petitioner since it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P5 has been forwarded by the Manager of the bank to the higher authorities for consideration. Leaving open all the contentions, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the bank to consider Ext.P5 and settle the transaction, if so advised. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/230908