IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 917 of 2008(H) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ 1. DIVAKARAN PARAYIL, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O VELAYUDHAN, PARAYIL HOUSE, PARAYIL LANE, THRISSUR. 2. KOMALAM DIVAKARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O SHRI DIVAKARAN PARAYIL, PARAYIL HOUSE, PARAYIL LANE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN SRI.R.SREERAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ANJALI COMPLEX, ROUND NORTH, MAIN BRANCH, THRISSUR-680001. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ANJALI COMPLEX, ROUND NORTH, MAIN BRANCH, THRISSUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SC FOR R1 SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)NO.917/2008 ---------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are the defaulters to the respondent Bank. The Bank had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It is stated that the petitioners have moved an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. According to him, the matter now stands posted before the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 22.1.2008. In the meanwhile the Bank had initiated steps for sale of the property. Petitioners submit that though an appeal has been filed is not in a position to obtain interlocutory orders from the Debt Recovery Tribunal, since the presiding judge of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is presently on leave and resumes sitting only on 29.2.2008. Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that there is absolutely no bona fides in the statement now made. 2. According to him, stay petition was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the first week of June 2007. It is stated that the Bank had filed its counter on 17.7.2007 and written W.P.(C)917/2008 2 statement on 18.9.2007. It is also submitted that in the meanwhile, the case was also posted on 25/9/2007, 11/12/2007 and now on 22.1.2008. According to the Bank, on all the posting dates of the case, it got adjourned only because the petitioners are unwilling to argue the matter. 3. Though the submissions made by the counsel for the Bank is contradicted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of the limited nature of the relief sought, I have no reason to decline the relief sought for. Further, the fact remains that the stay petition has been not heard and that the petitioners are disabled from moving for early orders. In view of this, I feel that some arrangements ought to be made to safeguard the interest of both sides. 4. On the facts stated in the writ petition itself, it is seen that after making payment of Rs.29,11,000/- towards their liability, the petitioners handed over a cheque to the Bank for Rs.30,89,000/- which was not accepted by the Bank. If that be so, on facts, it is obvious that the petitioners do not have any dispute about their liability to pay atleast Rs.30,89,000/- as stated in paragraph-4 of the writ petition. In view of the latches W.P.(C)917/2008 3 on the part of the petitioners and as a condition for deferring the sale now scheduled to take place on 24.1.2008, it is only reasonable to the petitioners to remit at least the aforesaid amount of Rs.30,89,000/-. Therefore there will be a direction to the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.30 lakhs (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) on or before 23.1.2008. 5. Subject to the remittance as above, the sale now scheduled to take place on 24.1.2008 shall be adjourned by the Bank and it will be held only after the Debt Recovery Tribunal considers Ext.P6 stay petition and pass orders thereon. It is also directed that immediately after the Debt Recovery Tribunal resumes sitting, it will be the obligation of the petitioners to seek appropriate orders on Ext.P6, as otherwise the Bank will be free to continue the action which has already been initiated. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css/