IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 25930 of 2002(J) ----------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. A.G.RAVINDRANATHAN, 'PRASANTHI', KRISHNA GARDENS, THIRUVAMBADY, THRISSUR. 2. M/S.UDAYA PLASTICS, PERINGANNOOR, PERAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, A.G.RAVINDRANATHAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL SALES OFFICER, TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK GROUP, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR - 680001. 2. THE TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVVE BANK LIMITED, HIGH ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 3. K.G.SASI, SPECIAL OFFICER, TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK GROUP, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR - 680001. R1 BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MATHEW G.VADAKKEL. R2 BY SRI.P.R.VENKITESH R3 BY SRI.K.C.CHACKO. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NOS.44266/02 & 1183/03 IN OP.NO.25930/2002-J. DISMISSED. 13.2.2008. Sd/- T.R.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:- Ext.P1: Copy of Certificate of Registration issued by the General Manager, D.I.C., Thrissur. Ext.P2: Copy of Order dtd.30.4.2002 of the Kerala Co-Op. Tribunal, Trivandrum. Ext.P3: Copy of Demand Notice dtd.4.9.2002 issued by the first respondent. Ext.P4: Copy of Order of Attachment issued by the first respondent. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- Ext.R2(a): Copy of the communication issued to the 2nd respondent by the Kerala State Co-op. Bank Ltd. on 4.9.2002. Ext.R2(b): Copy of the communication dtd.19.9.2002 from the Kerala Financial Corporation to the 2nd respondent. ( true copy ) P.A. TO JUDGE. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= O.P.No.25930 of 2002-J. ========================= Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners have filed this Original Petition challenging the proceedings Exts.P3 and P4 issued by the Special Sale Officer of the 2nd respondent Bank. The first petitioner had availed of an over draft facility to the tune of Rs.Ten lakhs from the 2nd respondent Bank for running an industrial unit. As security, property situated in Survey No.107 of Guruvayoor village was also been mortgaged with the Bank. The Bank filed ARC.No.876/2000 before the Arbitrator seeking to recover the balance amount which was disposed of as per awarded dated 5.4.2001. In the revision petition filed by the petitioners the award was modified whereby the future interest has been limited to 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the Co- operative Tribunal. O.P.No.25930 of 2002-J. 2 2. Thereafter the Sale Officer initiated proceedings to execute the award, by issuing Ext.P3 demand notice. Subsequently, by Ext.P4 the Sale Officer communicated an order of attachment of the properties of the petitioners covered by the mortgage and another property situated in Palakkad district and specifically in Malampuzha village. According to the petitioner, the said property is not covered by the mortgage deed and therefore the attachment ordered is without jurisdiction. 3. The Bank has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is admitted that the property situated in Palakkad district is not mortgaged to the Bank. In para.5 of the counter affidavit the Bank has averred that it has no objection to the attachment being lifted if the amount due under the award passed against the petitioners is discharged in its entirety. It is also averred that they have no objection in lifting the attachment over the property situated in Palakkad district provided the petitioner deposits 50% of the amount under the original award and undertakes not to encumber or otherwise alienate the property situated in Thrissur district. O.P.No.25930 of 2002-J. 3 4. It is thus not disputed before me by the Bank that the property in Palakkad district is not mortgaged to the Bank. It is clear from the averments in the counter affidavit that the attachment is sought for the reason that the petitioner may sell that property also. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the property in Palakkad district is allowed to be sold the petitioner may be able to clear off the dues towards the 2nd respondent's Bank. But to proceed with sale the attachment will have to be lifted. I find that the said demand is only just and reasonable. Therefore the petitioners are directed to submit their clear proposal before the Sale Officer for the purpose of sale of the property and on submission of the said proposal the attachment will be lifted to enable the petitioner to sell the property and remit the sale amount to the 2nd respondent Bank either directly by petitioners or through the purchaser. The above course is adopted for enabling the petitioner to clear off the awarded amount. The petitioners can also move for getting the benefit of any One Time Settlement Scheme in force, now. O.P.No.25930 of 2002-J. 4 5. The 2nd respondent Bank will also intimate the petitioner within one month from the date of production of a copy of this Judgment the actual arrears as of now after calculations are made in accordance with the order Ext.P2 issued by the Co- operative Tribunal if it has attained finality. The Sale Officer will also look into the correctness of the balance statement thus issued by the Bank. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-