IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9587 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.HARIDEVAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. G.MADHAVAN, T.C.54/2449, THURUTHIYIL KIZHAKKEVILA, PAPPANAMCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-18. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CELL (SARC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, STATUE BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. K.K. CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 9587 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd March , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act . The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that already there is a decree passed by the Civil Court in favour of the respondent Bank in O.S.No. 485 of 2003 on the file of the I Addl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and that the petitioner is ready and willing to satisfy the entire amount as per the decree subject to the benefit of 'OTS' notified by the Bank as per the notification dated 09.03.2010 published in the 'Hindu' daily dated 10.03.2010. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank, on instruction submits that the sale scheduled yesterday did not take place because of the negative tactics pursued by the petitioner informing the bidders, who assembled there that W.P.(C) No. 9587 OF 2010 2 there was an interim stay passed by this Court against the sale, which actually is contrary to the factual situation as no such orders were ever passed by this Court. The learned Counsel for the Bank further submits that in any view of the matter, the intention of the respondent Bank is only to realise the amount due under the decree and nothing more. It is also stated that the notification sought to be relied on by the petitioner is actually not applicable to the petitioner and if the same is held as applicable, the benefit thereunder will be extended to the petitioner as well. 3. Taking note of the submission made from the part of the respondent Bank that the amount shown in Ext.P2 is in terms of the decree and that the amount as on date is around Rs. Nine lakhs, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of 'Rs. One lakh' on or before 31.03.2010 and another sum of Rs. One lakh on or before 30.04.2010. On satisfying the initial amount of Rs. One lakh, the petitioner may file a representation before the respondent Bank for extending the benefit of 'OTS' as notified. On filing such representation, within two weeks from W.P.(C) No. 9587 OF 2010 3 the date of satisfaction of the first installment of Rs. One lakh, the matter shall be considered by the bank and the outcome shall be communicated to the petitioner, pointing out the balance liability and mode of payment. The liability of the petitioner to satisfy the balance amount will depend upon the outcome to be communicated by the respondent bank. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk