IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8690 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. LEELAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O. KESAVA PILLAI, AGED 45 YEARS, ARAPPURA VEEDU, ULIYANAD, KARAMKODE.P.O, KOLLAM. 2. JAYASREE, W/O. LEELAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 38 YEARS, ARAPPURA VEEDU, ULIYANAD, KARAMKODE.P.O, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, KOTTIYAM BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G. ROAD, STATUTE, TRIVANDRUM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.A.S.P. KURUP, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No.8690 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T The petitioners have approached this Court, challenging the steps taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act, for realisation of the due amount under the loan transaction. The grievance projected in the Writ Petition is that, the bank has already filed an O.A. before the DRT and this being the position, there is absolutely no justification for resorting to the steps under the SARFAESI Act, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that, the idea and understanding of the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, notwithstanding the pendency of the proceedings before the DRT is quite wrong and misconceived. The legal position in this regard stands settled in favour of the Bank, by virtue of the decision W.P.(C).No.8690 of 2010 2 rendered by the Apex Court, in M/s. Transcore v. Union of India in AIR 2007 (SC)712. This being the position, no interference is called for by this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that, the outstanding liability as on date will come nearly Rs.10.5 lakhs and that the bank does not have any objection to give some breathing time to the petitioner, provided the petitioners satisfy a portion of the liability immediately. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that, the contention raised with reference to the nature of property and Section 31(i) of the Act is not intended to be pressed any further and that the only prayer pressed before this Court is to permit the petitioners to have the time till 30th of June 2010 as stated in Ext.P7 representation already preferred before the bank so as to make other alternative arrangements and to satisfy the entire outstanding liability. 4. Considering the submissions made from either side, the undertaking made from the part of the petitioners, that W.P.(C).No.8690 of 2010 3 the petitioners will clear the entire liability as above is recorded and the petitioners are permitted to have the time till 30th of June 2010 to clear the entire outstanding liability. This will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach the respondent bank for any concessions/ allowance; which, however, shall be at the sole discretion of the bank, to be dealt with and provided to the possible extent. It is made clear that, if the petitioners fail in honouring the commitment as above, the Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps to realise the entire amount after 30.06.2010 as mentioned above. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE nl