IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20274 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SONY THOMAS, KULANGARA HOUSE, PERUMTHURUTHI P.O., EZHINJILLAM MURI, KAVUMBHAGAM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. MR. P.DEEPAK RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, EZHINJILLAM BRANCH, THIRUVALLA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE OFFICER/MANAGER. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REGION-IV, ZONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 3. ANIL THOMAS, KULANGARA HOUSE, PERUMTHURUTHY P.O., EZHINJILLAM MURI, KAVUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. MR. K.S. DILIP, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 20274 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 20th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the guarantor to the three different loan transactions availed by the 3rd respondent, who is none other than the brother of the petitioner. The third respondent/borrower could not repay the due amount in time, which made the respondent Bank to proceed with the steps under SARFAESI Act. This was sought to be intercepted by filing W.P.(C) No. 25588 of 2008 by the 3rd respondent, which culminated in Ext.P1 judgment, whereby the petitioner therein (3rd respondent herein) was permitted to clear the outstanding liability, as specified therein, by way of 5 equal monthly installments. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, eventhough two loan accounts were closed pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, the third loan transaction is still remaining, as the borrower did not clear the liability. 2. Met with the said circumstances, the petitioner/brother of the 3rd respondent has come forward this Court, stating that he is prepared to satisfy the liability towards the Bank, for which necessary arrangements have been effected identifying the prospective purchasers for the property by way of 'private sale' as contemplated under the relevant provisions of law. Necessary sanction of the Bank has also been sought for by filing Ext.P8 representation jointly by the WP (C) No. 20274 of 2009 : 2 : petitioner and the third respondent before the Bank and similarly, Ext.P9 representation has been submitted by the prospective purchaser as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the limited prayer in the present Writ Petition, is for a direction to consider Exts. P8 and P9 to have the matter finalized. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to issue any notice to the 3rd respondent or to direct the petitioner to implead the prospective purchaser, for the time being. The respondent Bank is hereby directed to consider Exts. P8 and P9 representations, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This exercise shall be pursued within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till such appropriate orders are passed on Exts. P8 and P9, the coercive proceedings, stated as being pursued against the third respondent, shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd