IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 718 of 2010(W) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14986/2010 Dated 02/07/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. RAJESH.R.,AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN,BHAKTHIVILASAM HOUSE, KOTTAPURAM, ALANGAD P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PROPRIETOR, M/S.MOONLIGHT TRADERS, KOTTAPPURAM. 2. R.HARIKUMAR AGED 30, S/O.LATE RAKHAVAN, BHAKTHIVILASAM HOUSE, KOTTAPPURAM, ALANGAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SATHIDEVI, AGED 56, W/O.LATE RAHAVAN, BHAKTHIVILASAM HOUSE, KOTTAPPURAM,ALANGAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA) RESPONDENT: --------------- BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, EZHIKKARA BRANCH. BY ADV. C. A. JOY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE PETITIONER YESTERDAY. TODAY ALSO, THERE IS NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE PETITIONER. IT APPEARS THAT, THE PETITIONER IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN THE CAUSE OF ACTION PROJECTED IN THIS WRIT PETITION. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVIEW PETITION IS DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT. SD/ P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 718 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C)No. 14986 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010 O R D E R The challenge raised by the petitioners against the action taken by the respondent Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) in the writ petition was considered and after hearing both sides, the term loan was permitted to be regularised on satisfying the 'overdue' loan amounts in a phased manner, simultaneously directing that, the working capital loan was to be cleared in toto, by way of six equal monthly instalments. There is also an observation in the said verdict that the benefit was being given to the petitioners, taking note of the submission that they did not intend to avail the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by approaching the DRT and that the only relief pressed was to permit the petitioners to clear the liability in a phased manner, also pointing out that necessary arrangements would be made to R.P. No. 718 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C)No. 14986 OF 2010 -:2:- have the rent that is being collected by the petitioners from the Beverages Corporation, who is a tenant of the petitioners, to be credited directly to the Bank. The petitioners approached this Court by filing this Review Petition stating that the petitioners omitted to submit that the petitioners had some other liability to the State Bank of India and that the petitioners had already agreed to have the rent payable by the Beverages Corporation to be appropriated by the State Bank of India. 2. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank as well. 3. Taking note of the submissions made by the counsel for the review petitioners, that the only modification now pressed before this Court is to permit the petitioners to clear the liabilities in respect of the aforesaid working capital loan by way of 'six instalments' instead of six equal monthly instalments. 4. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that interference can be made to the above limited extent; subject to the condition that petitioners satisfy the entire liability by R.P. No. 718 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C)No. 14986 OF 2010 -:3:- clearing the same within a period of six months as specified in the verdict. Relief stands modified to the above extent and the review Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ttb