IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 R.P.. 958 of 2009(K) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9343/2009 Dated 22/07/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ----------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, POOJAPURA, TRIVANDRUM, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,. 2. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PUDUSSERY BRANCH, PALAKKAD, REP.BY ITS MANAGER BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ------------------------------------------------ 1. STAR CARBIDES (P)LTD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, ERNAKULAM-36. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. R.P.No.958 OF 2009 IN W.P(C)No. 9343 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 20th October, 2009 O R D E R The proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank(who is the review petitioner), under the relevant provisions of the SARFAESI Act were subjected to challenge in the Writ Petition, also contending that the petitioner was entitled to have the benefit of OTS, which was stated as denied. During the pendency of the above proceedings, the petitioner filed I.A. 7208 of 2009, raising several contentions, also placing reliance on Exts. P6 and P7 Circulars stated as issued by the RBI. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank had submitted that the it was for the Bank to consider the applicability of such Circulars and if the petitioner approached the Bank by filing necessary applications, the same would be duly considered and appropriate orders would be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the matter was disposed of, as per the judgment dated 22.07.2009, whereby the R.P.No.958 OF 2009 IN W.P(C)No. 9343 OF 2009 2 petitioner was directed to file a representation incorporating the relevant contentions, as taken before this Court in I.A.7208 of 2009, with consequential directions to the Bank to consider the same with regard to the proclaimed benefit of OTS with reference to Exts. P6 and P7 Circulars or other relevant Circulars/guidelines/notices issued in this regard, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2. The respondent Bank has now come up before this Court through the above Review Petition, stating that even though the Bank had filed a counter affidavit in the above matter, non- applicability of Exts. P6 and P7 Circulars, which are stated as no more in existence , could not be brought to the notice of this Court. It is also stated that even though the borrower had applied for the benefit of OTS referring to Exts P6 and P7, subsequently, it was chosen to be withdrawn, as per Annexure- A2 produced along with the Review Petition. The learned Counsel further submits that the Bank is, however, ready and willing to consider the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the extension of eligible benefits on the basis of the present R.P.No.958 OF 2009 IN W.P(C)No. 9343 OF 2009 3 norms. 3. Going by the sequence of events, it is very much evident that , absolutely no decision was rendered by this Court on merits. The direction given to the Bank was only to consider the grievance projected from the part of the petitioner in the light of Ext.P6 and P7 Circulars or other relevant Circulars/guidelines/notices issued in this regard. This being the position, the Bank is very much at liberty to consider the matter on merits, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon. There is absolutely no obscurity or errors apparent on the face of the records, so as to sustain any review. As such, the judgment does not call for any interference . The Review Petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk