IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 10272 of 2010(H) -------------------------- OA.265/2006 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. ANIL P.AUGUSTINE, S/O.AUGUSINE, PALATHINGAL VEETTIL, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. 2. TONY THOMAS, S/O.V.V.THOMAS, VITHAYATHIL HOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI-24. BY ADV. MR. P.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, EDAPPALLY BRANCH, ERNAKULAM. 2. T & V TRADERS, VITHAYATHIL BUILDING, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI-24, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SUNNY T.S., THAPPODATH HOUSE, B.T.S.ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. 3. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 4. VIJAYA KUMAR PILLAI, RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 5. E.SURENDRAN, S/O.SANKUNNY MENON, SOUMYA NIVAS, PIPE LINE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-25. 6. P.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAGHAVA PILLAI, PUKALAKKAT ETTUKETTIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-25. R1 BY ADV. MR. SATHISH NINAN R3 MR. LEJI ABRAHAM, CGC FOR R5 & R6 MR. K.N.GOVINDANKUTTY MENON MR. S.MADHAVAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 10272 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 27th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i. Declare that the sale stated to have been held on 18.2.2010 in favour of respondents 5 & 6 of the property of the first petitioner covered under Ext. P1 is illegal and vitiated with irregularities in procedure and conduct. ii. Call for the records leading up to Ext. P9 and quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari iii. Direct the respondents 1 & 3 to reconvey the property covered under Ext. P1 in favour of the 1st petitioner. iv. In the light of payments under Exts. P6 and P7 series declare that the liability of the second respondent firm including its partners and sureties stood extinguished and further order exonerating the parties and owners from the liability under Ext. P2. v. Grant such other reliefs that may be just, proper and necessary in the interest of justice. 2. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank as well. 3. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W. P (C) 26272 of 2009 challenging the steps taken by the Bank under the relevant provisions of law, which was disposed of as borne by Ext. P5 judgment, whereby the coercive proceedings were intercepted and the petitioner was permitted to satisfy the liability in a phased manner, effecting the same by way of installments. W.P. (C) No. 10272 of 2010 : 2 : 4. Even prior to the filing of the said petition by the petitioners, (who are the partners of the concerned firm), the Managing Director of the firm had approached this Court by filing W. P. (C) 5872 of 2008 where also interference was made by this Court, permitting the said petitioner to satisfy the liability by way of installments, which also was not complied with. Even after the much indulgence shown by this Court, vide Ext. P5, the petitioner did not chose to clear the due amount, but for some part payments and in the said circumstances, the Bank proceeded with further steps, causing the property to be sold in public auction, which is stated as bid by the sixth respondent. 5. Subsequent to the sale as above, it is stated that the petitioner has remitted entire amount before the Recovery Officer, within the time as specified and that Exts. P8(a) and P8 (b) interlocutory applications are pending for reddressal of the grievance of the petitioner. It is also stated that the negotiations are going on between the petitioner, Bank and the successful bidder to have the matter amicably settled. 6. In the above facts and circumstances, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider and finalize Ext. P8 (a), in accordance with law, after hearing all concerned and this shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This will not stand in the way of the petitioner to W.P. (C) No. 10272 of 2010 : 3 : have the matter settled amicably, subject to the appropriate terms. Till such final orders are passed as above, the issuance of 'sale certificate' in favour of the sixth respondent shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd 9