IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 538 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14459/2009 Dated 08/06/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: ---------------------- CAPITAL JAMES JOSEPH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOTTAYAM GOLDEN MARINE PRIVATE LIMITED, 3RD FLOOR, MADUKKANNIL PCT CHAMBERS, KANJIKUZHY JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM -686004. BY ADV. MR. E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOTTAYAM MAIN BRANCH, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM - 686 001, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, C & I DIVISION STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOTTAYAM MAIN BRANCH, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 3. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 4. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012. BY ADV. MR. K.S. DILIP, STANDING COUNSEL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P. No. 538 of 2009 IN W.P.(C) No. 14459 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 17th day of June, 2009 ORDER The review petitioner has come up before this Court stating that, while passing the order dated 8.6.2009 modifying the earlier order dated 27.3.2009, this Court had placed reliance on the submission made from the part of the respondent Bank, that the petitioner had not remitted a sum of Rs.30 lakhs to the loan transaction as alleged. The review petitioner, with reference to Annexure A1 and A2, submits that he has already remitted more than 28 lakhs and that the submission made by the learned counsel for the Bank was not at all correct or proper. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank submits that the amounts of transaction shown in Annexure A2, particularly under column showing the credit was transferred from the other account held by the petitioner with the very same Bank. In fact, the petitioner had 3 different accounts and the 'modus operandi', according to the respondents, was by simply transferring some amounts from one account to the other; which cannot be regarded as proper payments. The learned counsel for the Bank further submits that R.P. No. 538 of 2009 : 2 : total loan amount was only Rs. 50 lakhs and if the contention of the petitioner that he he had already remitted Rs.30 lakhs is true, the outstanding amount as on date might not have crossed the figure of Rs.1 crore. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any 'error apparent on the face of the record' for having passed the order impugned in the present Review Petition. The interim order was passed, taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances as on date and necessary safe guard has been incorporated in the order itself, whereby finalization of the sale has already been intercepted. There is absolutely no merit in the Review Petition; it fails and is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd