IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8552 of 2009(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. ANDIKADAN SAINABA, W/O. ABDU KOTHAPARAMBAN, K.P.HOUSE, ASUPATHRIKUNNU, KARULAYI P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ABDU KOTHAPARAMBAN, S/O. MUHAMMED, K.P.HOUSE, ASUPATHRIKUNNU, KARULAYI P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU, MR.P.VENUGOPAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE NILAMBUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER (DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER), THE NILAMBUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., MALAPPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.DEVAPRASANTH, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.8552 of 2009-L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioners availed a facility from the first respondent. That was not repaid. During the financial year ending 31.3.2008, a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 27.2.2008. Since there was no repayment, on 25.11.2008, notice for sale was issued. One more financial year has been pushed through and the SARFAESI Act proceedings have not been completed. 2.Faced with the proceedings for sale, the petitioners filed this writ petition. They were given an interim order on 18.3.2009 to pay an amount of Rs.3 lakhs to sustain an order of stay as against the total outstandings which is Rs.7,53,609/- as on 24.11.2008 and further accruals thereon. The writ petitioners have not WP(C)8552./2009 -: 2 :- complied with that interim order. Having examined the materials and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned proceedings. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/060409