IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19294 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- NARINDER KUMAR JAIN,JAIN BHAVAN, MUTTAMBALAM,KOTTAYAM,PIN-686 004. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, KOTTAYAM BRANCH,KORATTIYIL COMPLEX,SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM,PIN"686 001,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER(SAZRFAESI ACT), ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,KORATTIYIL COMPLEX, SASTRI ROAD,KOTTAYAM-686 001. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI.P.JOSEPH . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO. 19315 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 19294, 19315, 19316 & 19317 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 22nd July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in all these cases are stated as aggrieved in respect of the very same cause of action whereby huge amounts were borrowed from the respondent Bank, creating security interest over the property in question, which however could not be repaid on time. The case of the petitioners as projected in the Writ Petitions is that they were having financial arrangements with the Canara Bank and liability was taken over by the respondent Bank giving much assurance and offers so as to conduct the business in a smooth and better manner. But after re-arrangement of the loan, as above, there occurred some estrangement between the petitioners and the Manager of the Bank, who sought to proceed with coercive steps, making the position of the petitioners in doldrums. It is in the said W.P.(C) No. 19294, 19315, 19316 & 19317 OF 2010 2 circumstance that the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court challenging the steps taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Bank has already filed O.As. before the DRT, which are pending and it is without any regard to pendency of the O.As, the machinery under the SARFAESI Act is set in motion. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits with reference to the counter affidavit filed, that the averments and allegations raised against the Bank officers do not hold any water at all, for the fact that the petitioners admittedly turned to be defaulters and huge liability to an extent of 'Rs. 8 Crores' is to be satisfied, so as to wipe out the the liability under the loan transaction. But it is with intent to stall the sale proceedings, that the petitioners are approaching this Court seeking for regularisation of the loan transaction which does not deserve to be considered. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have made arrangements to sell out a portion of the W.P.(C) No. 19294, 19315, 19316 & 19317 OF 2010 3 property and to clear the liability to the Bank in a phased manner. It is also stated that appropriate arrangements are being made to deposit a portion of the liability to prove their bonafides and to work out a plausible solution, for which some breathing time is sought for. The petitioners have got other contentions as well, on various questions of fact and also on the questions of law. 4. Taking note of the rival submissions, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case, but for interfering with the coercive proceedings for a short while, on condition that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs. '7.5 lakhs' each within 'six weeks'; making it clear that the time schedule has to be strictly adhered to. Subject to this, all further coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It will be for the parties to work out a solution with regard to the manner of repayment of the outstanding liability to be satisfied. If the matter could not be worked out in an amicable manner between the petitioners and the respondents, it W.P.(C) No. 19294, 19315, 19316 & 19317 OF 2010 4 will be open for the petitioners to challenge the proceedings by resorting to the statutory remedy, by approaching the DRT. The Writ Petitions are disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk