IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 RP.No. 1210 of 2007(F) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.32607/2007 Dated 02/11/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 5 & 6: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. REMA BALAN, W/O. LATE BALAN, KOODAKENTAVIT HOUSE, P.O.CHOMBALA, VIA - VADAKARA. 2. SINDHU, D/O. LATE BALAN, KOOADENTAVIT HOUSE, P.O.CHOMBALA, VIA - VADAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND REMAINING RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. O.K.KUNHABDULLA, OTHAYOTH HOUSE, KUTTIADI P.O., KOZHIKODE. 2. O.K.ABDUL SALAM, S/O. AYAMMED, OTHAYOTH HOUSE, KUTTIADI P.O., KOZHIKODE. 3. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TRICHUR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, KOZHIKODE MAIN BRANCH. 4. M/S. DYNA GROUP OF AGENCIES, M-33, MARKAZ COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 5. P.P.NARAYANAN, PARTNER, DYNA GROUP AGENCIES, PARAYULLA PARAMBATH HOUSE, MARUTHONIKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. SANDHYA, W/O. DINESH, PARTNER, DYNAL GROUP AGENCIES, RESIDING AT ARMISSHES FLAT, GROUND FLOOR, ASHOKAPURAM, KOZHIKODE. 7. RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== R.P.No.1210 of 2007 in W.P.(C)No.32607 of 2007 & W.P.(C)No.6988 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008. ORDER Two items of properties were put to sale by the recovery officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the enforcement of a recovery certificate in favour of the bank. WPC No.32607 of 2007 was filed asserting that one of the items in question is a collateral security while the other item belongs to the principal debtor. This Court noticed that even after both the items are sold, the entire amount due to the bank could not be wiped off. Hence, it was ordered that the property, which was stated to be of the principal debtor, may be sold at the first instance and the other item thereafter. It was also stated that while making such sale, the petitioner in WPC No.32607 of 2007 may be at RP1210/07&WPC6988/08 -:2:- liberty to purchase the other item in auction. Following that judgment, auction has taken place and the petitioners in WPC No.32607 of 2007 bid one item of property. Regarding the other item, in the meanwhile, sale was conducted because the petitioner in WPC No.32607 of 2007 did not pay off the entire outstandings. That sale also has apparently become final which is stated to be within a period of one month. 2. Having noticed the aforesaid facts, it could be seen that even in spite of the two sales, the entire amounts due to the bank is yet to be satisfied. This means that those sales will stand subject to the right of the parties to set aside the sale in terms of the rules contained in the IInd Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. Without prejudice to that, the bank is entitled to have the money recovered from the recovery officer. Petitioners in WPC No.6988 of 2008 states that they RP1210/07&WPC6988/08 -:3:- could not purchase the property because of the filing of R.P.No.1210 of 2007. I notice that there was no interim order in RP No.1210 of 2007 interdicting, in any manner, the petitioners in WPC No.32607 of 2007. Having regard to what is aforesaid, RP No.1210 of 2007 and WPC No.6988 of 2008 are dismissed without prejudice to the rights, if any, to take recourse to statutory remedy, in accordance with law. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.