IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24965 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.LANSEA FOODS(P) LTD., 10/438, CHERIYAKADAVU, KANNAMALLY, COCHIN-682 008, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SANTHOSH JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. CANARA BANK, OVER SEAS BRANCH, KARUNA BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC, CANARA BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24965 of 2009(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF PUBLICATION OF SALE DATED 16.8.2009 ISSUED BY THE BANK. P2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE DATED 9.9.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE. app/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 24965 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. The Petitioner is approaching this court against the sale proposed through Ext.P2 notice with respect to immovable property (secured assets) taken over possession by the respondent Bank, pursuant to proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). Originally the sale was proclaimed to 17.8.2009, as per Ext.P1 notice. On that day the sale could not be materialized as there was no bidders. But the respondent had simply adjourned the sale to 9.9.2007, without making any proper publication, is the complaint. It is submitted that out of the four items covered under Ext.P2 notice, sale could not take place with respect to two items (item No.3 and 4) because of stay order granted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, at the instance of some others. With respect to W.P(C) No. 24965 of 2009 2 other two items (items 1 and 2 in Ext.P1) the sale which stood adjourned to 9.9.2009, could not take place because of the interim order of this court. 2. According to the petitioner, the proposed sale was without proper publication and the same was in non- compliance of the provision contained in the relevant rules. 3. However, the learned standing counsel on instruction submitted that the loan account is in huge default and the petitioner company had totally failed in settling the arrears inspite of granting considerable waiver of interest under the “one time settlement scheme”. Since no specific provision is contemplated under the relevant rules with respect to adjournment of sale, there is no infirmity in Ext.P2 notice, is the contention. 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and rival contention of the parties, I am of the opinion, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that if the sale is conducted without there being proper W.P(C) No. 24965 of 2009 3 publication, the property may not fetch reasonable market price, seems to be sustainable. This is especially because of the huge quality of the amounts in the loan transaction as well as the huge value of the properties put to auction. 5. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to proceed with sale of the properties mentioned as items 1 and 2 in Ext.P1 notice only after due publication of the sale through the newspapers and after complying with the formalities prescribed under the SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder. It is also directed that while making any such publication the details of machineries if included in sale has to describe specifically. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE app/-