IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 27504 of 2007(Y) --------------------------------------- OA.202/2000 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA & LAKSHADWEE), ERNAKULAM) .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. M/S. BEST FOOD CORPORATION, KARUVELIPADY,COCHIN-5, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR A HABEEB, S/O. LATE ABDUL RAHIMAN, SUAIDA MANZIL, KAROOR, AMBALAPUZHA, ALPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. RAZIA BEEVI, W/O. HABEED, SUBAIDA MANZIL, KAROOR, AMBALAPUZHA, ALPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.), ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, BEACH ROAD, ALAPPUZHA-REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANGER. 2. A.M.SURENDRAN,S/O. LATE A.A. MADHAVAN, ANDUIMALIL HOUSE, NEAR SANTHOM CHURCH MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHI. 3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP) 8TH FLOOR, KSBH BUILIDINGS, PANAMPALLY NAGAR COCHIN -682036. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.), R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR, ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.27504/2007-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 27/02/03 ISSUED BY THE R.1. BANK TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PROPOSAL GIVEN TO THE R.1. BANK ON 23/09/2005 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE ISSUED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER ON 23/07/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 31/08/07 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 14/08/2007 SENT BY THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 01/09/2007 GIVEN BY THE BANK TO THE BROTHER OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ON 07/09/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT : EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 23/10/2006 ISSUED BY THE AGM, RESPONDENT NO.1. BANK TO THE DGM OF THE BANK AT TRIVANDRUM. //TRUE COPY// prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.27504 of 2007-Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioners suffered a recovery certificate at the hands of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The property was put to sale. On the date of sale, only the second respondent participated and the sale was knocked down in his favour for a price of Rs.50,000/- in excess of the upset price. That sale is under challenge. In the meanwhile, the petitioners also filed an application before the Recovery Officer to set aside the sale. By order dated 13-11-2007, that application has been rejected, however deferring the confirmation of the sale, owing to the pendency of this writ petition. 2.The auction purchaser, second respondent does not WP(C)27504/2007 -: 2 :- concede to be satisfied by being paid off. 3.The first respondent bank has placed a counter affidavit. I have read it. I do not propose to elaborately state the recitals therein, having regard to the fact that the bank, for reasons which are disclosed in that counter affidavit, cannot be persuaded to come to a compromise. It is apparent that an officer of the bank attempted even to defraud it under the cover of the transaction in question. 4.As against the order refusing to set aside the sale, the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy also by way of an appeal before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is also stated that the petitioners have filed application to set aside the recovery order itself by filing I.A.Nos.1878 and 1879 of 2007 in O.A.202/2000 on the ground that they could not appear and contest the matter. WP(C)27504/2007 -: 3 :- 5.Having regard to what is aforesaid, I do not think that this is an appropriate case for extending the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court to grant any relief. 6.In the result, preserving the rights of the petitioners for relief under the statute, including to prosecute the applications which now stand listed before the competent authorities, this writ petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/