IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1560 of 2010(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.S.SWAMINATHAN, AGED 36, S/O.LATE SUBRAMANIAN, THERAYANKODE HOUSE, EZHAKKAD PO, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEFMANAGER, (AUTHORISED OFFICER) SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2. SRI.PADMADAS, S/O.KRISHNAN, ROHINI, THIRUPURAKKAL NAGAR, MELAMURI, PALAKKAD. 3. MISS.K.SHOBHA, D/O.KRISHNAN, ROHINI, THIRUPURAKKAL NAGAR, MELAMURI, PALAKKAD. BY SC SRI. R.S KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.1560 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The proceedings taken by the respondent Bank issuing notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act were challenged by the petitioner earlier by filing W.P (C) No.28752 of 2009 ,which led to Ext.P5 judgment passed by this Court on 6.11.2009, whereby, interference was declined, however, with liberty to approach the Bank for permitting the petitioner to have private sale or One Time Settlement or for waiver of the interest as the case may be, giving simultaneous direction to the bank to consider and finalise the same. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 before the bank which was considered and positively responded as per Ext.P7, expressing willingness to release 'two' items of properties for 'private sale'; subject to the conditions as stipulated therein. In the meanwhile, the petitioner found out some prospective buyers with whom Exts.P8, P9 W.P (C) No.1560 of 2010 2 and P10 agreements for sale have been executed. The contention of the petitioner is that the sale could not take place for the reason that somebody else filed a Civil Suit before the Sub Court, Thrissur, wherein, the property forming the subject matter of private sale as above, has been caused to be attached as per order dated 13.1.2010 issuing Ext.P11 notice to the petitioner. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to Ext.P11 notice, the petitioner has appeared before the Civil Court and has taken earnest efforts to see that the attachment is lifted and the matter now stands adjourned to 15.2.2010. The only limited prayer before this Court is to provide some breathing time to get the attachment lifted, so as to facilitate the 'private sale' and to clear the liability to the Bank. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits, on instructions, that there is absolutely no merits or bonafides in the claim made by the petitioner, more so, since Exts.P8 to P10 agreements for sale were executed in October 2009 and further the period for completion of the W.P (C) No.1560 of 2010 3 sale was only 'one month' from the date of the agreement, which is already over. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the total liability of the petitioner to the Bank will cross Rs.1.65 crores; whereas the amount likely to be procured by the sale of the properties covered by Exts.P8 to P10 will be only around Rs.25 lakhs. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the understanding between the petitioner and the Bank was to go for a private sale of the properties in question and to remit the entire amount procured by way of sale to the bank, upon which loan account was to be rescheduled enabling the petitioner to clear the liability in a phased manner. 5. In any view of the matter, the fact remains that the liability of the petitioner is still to be satisfied and that no lapse or failure is pointed out on the part of the bank in pursuing the remedy available to them under the SARFAESI Act. This being the position, no interference is warranted in this writ petition and the Bank is free to proceed with further steps, in accordance with law. W.P (C) No.1560 of 2010 4 However, taking note of the persuasive submissions made from the part of the petitioner to give some breathing time to move the Sub Court, Thrissur, the respondent bank shall proceed with such further steps only after 28.2.2010. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.1560 of 2010 5 W.P (C) No.1560 of 2010 6