IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29287 of 2008(J) -------------------------- SA.83/2007 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: -------------------- V.M.MEHBOOB ALI S/O.LATE MOIDEEN BAVA, CC.51/570, KRISHNASWAMY ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CANARA BANK, REP. BY ITS MANAGER K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, ARM BRANCH, RUKHIYA BAGH BUILDINGS, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 29287 OF 2008 (J) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a guarantor for a loan availed from the first respondent. On default, SARFAESI Act was invoked and the guarantor's property, over which the security interest was created, has been brought to sale. That measure was challenged by the guarantor before the DRT. Though the Tribunal exhaustively considered the materials including the commissioner's report, the revenue documents, the title deeds and the valuation report of the bank and essentially concluded that the land, which is the security property, is not agricultural land; issued an interim order rejecting the request for stay. In the guarantor's appeal against that order, DRAT granted a conditional order of stay requiring the appellant/writ petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.50 lakhs. Going by the accruals in terms of Exhibit P1 notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, I would treat the amount of Rs.50 lakhs as a comparatively small figure. This writ petition is filed challenging the interim order of the DRAT. On consideration of arguments, it does not disclose any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity or other grounds warranting exercise of authority under Article W.P.(C) No.29287/2008 2 226 of the Constitution of India. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is the guarantor and his request that he may be granted a short time, it is directed that the impugned order would be treated as satisfied, if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.25 lakhs, within a period of three weeks and a further amount of Rs.25 lakhs, within further three weeks. Needless to say, if such deposit is not made, the bank will be at liberty to proceed with the sale, eventhough technically, that may be without prejudice to the prosecution of the petitioner's appeal before the DRAT. It is further ordered that since the sale is scheduled on 14-10-2008, this judgment will not stand in the way of the bank, to conduct the sale. However, confirmation of the sale will stand adjourned by consideration of what is stated above. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/7/10 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.