IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21391 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RADHAKRISHNAN, 'VYGA', PARIPPILLY P.O PARIPPILLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NADAKKAL SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD.NO. 1874, KALLUVATHUKKAL, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM. 2. SALE OFFICER, NADAKKAL SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD.NO. 1874, CO-OP.SOCIETY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.21391 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT In 2001, petitioner had availed of a loan of Rs.10 lakhs from the respondent Bank. Going by the pleadings, petitioner repaid only Rs.3 lakhs. It is stated that due to sickness and loss he had to close down his business and as a result there of repayment was not made. Recovery proceedings were initiated and finally Ext.P6 award was passed by the Arbitrator enabling the Bank to realise its dues. 2. Thereafter, Ext.P3 demand notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.22,39,065/- along with other charges. That was challenged before this court WP(c).No.1387/09. This court by order dated 13.1.2009 stayed the sale scheduled on 14.1.2009, on condition that the petitioner remits Rs.3 lakhs on before 14.1.2009. This order was not complied with and as a result of which the WP(c).No.21391/09 2 sale was held and the Bank itself purchased the property. 3. Petitioner did not apply for getting the sale set aside in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act. But however, it is stated that Ext.P5, an undated representation was filed, requesting that the sale should be cancelled and he should be given time to prefer appeal. It is complaining that there has been any response to Ext.P5 this writ petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the sale held on 14.1.2009. As already stated,the sale was necessitated only on account of the default committed by the petitioner. Petitioner also did not comply with the condition that was imposed by this court in WP(c)No.1387/09. If that be the factual position, the Bank cannot be faulted with the sale that was effected on 14.1.2009. Even if there is any substance in the complaint that the sale was vitiated for some reasons, the remedy available to the petitioner was to get the sale set aside and this remedy also was not pursued. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. WP(c).No.21391/09 3 Writ petition fails and is dismissed. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE WP(c).No.21391/09 4