IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35334 of 2009(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MANI C. KAPPAN, LEELAVILAS, KARAPUZHA ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS.MR.DEEPU THANKAN SMT.G.RANJITA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN- 36. 2. INDIAN BANK, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. R2 BY ADV. MR.S.EASWARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.35334 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Ext.P4 proclamation of sale issued by the 1st respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repaying loan availed from the 2nd respondent Bank, the Debt Recovery Tribunal was approached and a decree was obtained by the 2nd respondent. On the basis of the Recovery Certificate the 1st respondent initiated execution steps and a particular item of the property mentioned in Ext.P4 was put to sale. Complaint of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent had reduced the reserve price of the property from Rs.40 lakhs to Rs.32 lakhs, which according to the petitioner, is illegal and causing prejudice to him. 2. It is noticed that through Ext.P3 the 1st respondent has issued a notice to the petitioner calling for objection if any regarding reduction in the reserve price, since no sale took place on the previous occasions. It is stated by the petitioner that he is taking steps to arrange private sale of the property to a probable buyer for an amount of Rs.40 lakhs, and if sale is proclaimed and conducted quoting the reserve price as Rs.32 lakhs, that will W.P.(C).35334/09-J 2 cause prejudice and the property may not be sold even for an amount of Rs.32 lakhs. 3. I notice that the matter regarding reduction of reserve price was intimated to the petitioner. But he has not raised nay objection against such proposal. Further I notice that even if the petitioner has got any grievance against the reduction made in the reserve price, he has got an effective remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, to challenge such decision of the 1st respondent in appeal. 4. However learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Bank submitted that there is no bonafides in the offer expressed by the petitioner, because inspite of specific postings for sale of the property, the petitioner has not come forward with any buyer, making any concrete offer. It is further stated that the petitioner had not submitted anything in writing with respect to such offer and he had never approached the 1st respondent seeking private sale. However it is further conceded that if the petitioner or anyone is ready to purchase the property for Rs.40 lakhs, the Bank is prepared to accept the same and to effect sale of the property. 5. On the basis of the above rival submissions I am of the opinion that in the interest of justice a chance can be given to W.P.(C).35334/09-J 3 the petitioner to make payment of an amount of Rs.40 lakhs towards purchase price of the property, upon which the sale can be effected either in favour of the petitioner or to any of his nominees. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of making it clear that if the petitioner makes deposit of the amount of Rs.40 lakhs as offered, on or before 31.1.2010 either before the 1st respondent or before the 2nd respondent, steps have to be taken to complete sale of the property as directed above. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of the above said amounts the respondents are free to proceed with further steps for sale of the property. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb