IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27877 of 2008(R) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- M.V.HEMALATHA, SURABHI.NO.2045, YUVADHARA GARDEN RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION, KOWDIAR PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.) SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN THRISSUR. 2. CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK, KANNANALLOOR BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. R.C.SATHEESH BABU, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, GEETHU NIVAS, PANANGADU, PUNALUR AND ALSO HAVING RESIDING AT SURABHI, NO.2045, YUVADHARA GARDEN RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION, KOWDIAR, PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL),SC- R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.27877 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Having regard to the nature of the directions being issued hereunder, notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with, preserving his right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2. The fourth respondent is a contractor. Petitioner is his wife. Certain items of properties, including those belonging to the petitioner were mortgaged to create security interest in favour of the first respondent to support a loan availed by the fourth respondent. On default, the bank has brought one item of property for sale under the WPC27877/08 -:2:- SARFAESI Act. According to the petitioner, that item, apart from being valuable, is the only residential plot available to her and her daughter in Ulloor in Thiruvananthapuram city and deprivation of that property, as of now, will result in havoc to her and her daughter for their future. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is no conflict of interest between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, who are on good terms. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate that if the bank gives the petitioner and the fourth respondent an opportunity to tide over the situation and having regard to the submissions by the learned senior counsel for the WPC27877/08 -:3:- petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, this writ petition is ordered directing that if an amount of Rs.20 lakhs is remitted on or before the time fixed for the impugned sale, as of now, the said sale will stand adjourned for four months and if the petitioner or the fourth respondent, as the case may be, provides any private purchaser in the meanwhile for any or all of the security properties and if the bank is satisfied that the entire outstandings will be wiped off by such sale, the bank shall receive the amounts directly and release the properties to the petitioner or the fourth respondent to enter into the sale. This judgment will not stand in the way of either the petitioner or the fourth respondent obtaining any concession in the total outstandings, as may be decided upon by WPC27877/08 -:4:- the bank on appropriate request, if such request is made after remitting the aforesaid amount of Rs.20 lakhs. If the petitioner fails to remit the amount as aforesaid, the benefit of this judgment will stand recalled automatically and respondents 1 to 3 will be at liberty to forthwith proceed with distress action. It is also clarified that all other issues are left open. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.