IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16288 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. C.C. IBRAHIM, CHALAKKAL HOUSE, MANNANTHERI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. C.C. UMEERA, CHALAKKAL HOUSE, MANNANTHERI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. C.C. THAHIRA, CHALAKKAL HOUSE, MANNANTHERI.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.JOHNY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, PIN-670001. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (KANNUR)-CUM-SALE OFFICER, THE KANNUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KANNUR-670001. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.16288 OF 2011 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN A.R.C.NO.427 OF 2008 DATED 22.10.2009 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.6.2011 BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16288 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 notice dated 3.6.2011 issued by the Sale Officer of Kannur District Co-operative Bank Ltd. informing the petitioners that unless the amount due from them under Ext.P1 award is deposited, the properties described in Ext.P2 will be attached and brought to sale is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioners availed a loan of Rs.1,75,000/- from the Kannur District Co-operative Bank Ltd. way back on 16.11.2001. When they defaulted repayment of the loan, the bank filed A.R.C.No.427 of 2008 before the Arbitrator under section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. By Ext.P1 award passed on 22.10.2009, the Arbitrator directed payment of the sum of Rs.2,10,845/- with future interest thereon at the rate of 16% per annum from 1.3.2009. The said award has attained finality. The petitioners did not pay any amount even thereafter. It was in such circumstances that the Sale Officer of the bank issued Ext.P2 notice informing the petitioners that unless the amount due under the award is paid, the properties mentioned therein will be attached and brought to sale. Incidentally, it is also mentioned in Ext.P2 that as on 1.6.2011, the sum of Rs.2,54,045/- is due from the petitioners. W.P.(C) No.16288 of 2011 2 3. The main ground raised in the writ petition is that a portion of the mortgaged property alone is required to be sold and therefore the proposal to sell the entire property is arbitrary. Yet another contention raised is that the petitioners are in acute financial crisis and therefore they are unable to pay the dues and they require a breathing time and an opportunity to pay the balance amount due in instalments. As regards the first contention, it is evident from the materials presently on record that the bank is yet to attach the property and bring it to sale. The petitioners can avert the sale of the property by voluntarily paying off the debt. That apart, as the bank is yet to take steps to sell the property, it cannot be said that the entire property will be sold. Further, by Circular No.63 of 2010 dated 23.12.2010, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies had extended certain concessions and benefits to persons who had availed loans from co-operative institutions. The said scheme was in force till 31.3.2011. The petitioners could have availed the said benefit if they were desirous of discharging the debt. The petitioners have no case that after the award was passed, they have paid any amount towards the decree debt or that they had approached the bank requesting for an opportunity to pay the award amount in instalments. As the award W.P.(C) No.16288 of 2011 3 has become final, the decree holder bank is entitled to call upon the petitioners, who are the judgment debtors, to pay off the decree debt. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the challenge to Ext.P2 is without any merit. The writ petition is in my opinion an abuse of the process of the court. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.