IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 4487 of 2009(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.P. VELAYUDHAN, SON OF KUTTAN, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIRUVATHIRA, 431/10 PERAMANGALM VILLAGE, TRICHUR DT. 2. SYMALA, W/O. P.P. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 44 YEARS,RESIDING AT THIRUVATHIRA, 431/10 PERAMANGALM VILLAGE, TRICHUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJU.M RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY (BANKING AND INSURANCE) DEPT. OF ECONOMIC AFFARIS, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI 110 001. 2. THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, KARUPPAM ROAD, TRICHUR. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, SHATHABDI BHAVAN, MINI BYE PASS ROAD, GOVINDAPURAM, KOZHIKODE 673016 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER FOR R2 SRI.B.RAGHUNANDANAN FOR R2 SRI.THYPARAMBIL THOMAS THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 4487 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT The first petitioner retired from KSRTC. The second petitioner is his wife. They availed two loans from the second respondent. They are facing action under the SARFAESI Act. The first plea is that the amounts due to the first petitioner from the fourth respondent KSRTC towards retiral benefits would be in excess of the amounts due from the petitioners to the second respondent. I had granted an interim order of stay for one month to enable the petitioners to move for appropriate directions of this court from the jurisdiction in terms of the roaster, for out of turn disbursement of retiral benefits. No action in that direction is shown to have been taken by the petitioners until today. There is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned proceedings, going by the counter affidavit and the materials placed by the second respondent, bank. Therefore it may not be proper for this court to further detain the SARFAESI Act proceedings, except to give the petitioners a further breathing WP(C) 4487/2009 2 time till 30th May 2009 as a last chance. 2. In the result, while refusing to interfere with the impugned proceedings, it is ordered that further distress action on the basis of the impugned proceedings would stand deferred till 1.6.2009 on condition that the petitioners deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 30.4.2009 and a further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 27.5.2009. If there is default in remitting any of the instalments as aforesaid, the benefit of this judgment will be recalled automatically. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/24/3