IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25730 of 2008(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ARAKKAL THYVALAPPIL IMBICHU @ KAYYU D/O. KUNHIMOIDU, AGED 57 YEARS P.O.KADAPPURAM, TRICHUR (DT) BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD NO.F1652, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR (DT). 2. THE GURUVAYOOR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD NO.F1652, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER GURUVAYOOR P.O.,THRISSUR (DT). BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.DEVAPRASANTH P.J. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.25730 OF 2008 (K) ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner availed a loan from the second second respondent bank. She did not repay that. Proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act. She filed writ petition in 2007. While that matter came up for consideration, it was submitted that she may be permitted to pay off the entire outstandings in instalments. She obtained the order to pay off the entire outstandings in eight equal monthly instalments. That was not paid. Thereafter, though the petitioner, a hotelier, moved the Kerala Farmers' Debt Recovery Commission and obtained an interim order as if it is an agricultural loan and she is a farmer. 2. Now the petitioner states that the properties are very valuable even going by the valuation reflected in the impugned Ext.P7 notice, listing the property for W.P.(C) No.25730/2008 -2 - sale and that the amounts paid by him even after Ext.P4 judgment and Ext.P1 notice have not been given due credit. The bank has retained those amounts in a suspense account. Obviously, the first credit has to go towards the expenditure, then towards interest and then towards principal. That is only a matter for accounting, while settling the transaction. 3. I also notice the plea of the petitioner that the entire extent of the property need not be sold. Subject to what is stated above regarding any adjustments of payments, the learned counsel for the bank states that the property lies as a single plot with a building in the middle and it may be impossible to sell only a portion to fetch the appropriate value of the property. That ground may arise only before the executing authority. W.P.(C) No.25730/2008 -3 - For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned sale proceedings, though the petitioner will be at liberty to point out to the authorised officer, that the total outstandings will be lesser than the amount fixed in Ext.P8. This writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/27/8 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.