IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22695 of 2008(B) ---------------------------------------- OA.123/2000 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: ----------------- R.BHADRAKUMAR PARAKIMAMVILA VEEDU, EZHUKONE P.O.,KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER THE DEBTS RECOVEORY TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP) 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36 2. THE MANAGER THE FEDERAL BANK LTD KUNDARA BRANCH HOSPITAL JN KUNDARA, KOLLAM 695 101 ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.22695 OF 2008 (B) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner suffered Ext.P1 final order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 04-11-2003. By Ext.P2, the security properties were brought to sale on 21-2-2006. Petitioner filed Ext.P3 petition objecting to that proclamation, raising two grounds. It was contended that the upset price fixed is too low and that the sale need be only of such portion of the property as is required to generate the total debt. They also submitted Ext.P4 on 18-3-2006 before the bank, for certain benefits of one time settlement scheme. Later, petitioner moved this Court and obtained Ext.P6 judgment. He stood relegated to statutory appeal. That was not filed. Ext.P7 proclamation was, thereafter, issued on 09-06-2008. That is challenged by the petitioner stating that the reserve price fixed for three items of the properties are further slashed from the rates at which it was fixed in Ext.P2. The bank is criticized for not extending the one time facility. The sale stands scheduled as per Ext.P7, to this afternoon. W.P.(C) No.22695/2008 - 2 - 2. The fact remains that in spite of Ext.P2 issued on 21-2- 2006 with a higher reserve price rate, the sale did not take place, though, the petitioner was unsuccessful in obtaining orders from this Court. The fixing of a particular reserve price does not, in any manner, impair the sale proceedings. It can be seen that even if all the three items are put for sale to fetch at least the reserve price fixed as per Ext.P2 way back on 21-2-2006, that would be insufficient to wipe off, even then the remaining outstandings. Therefore, I do not find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity, to interfere. 3. Considering the offer of the petitioner to wipe off the entire outstandings, if reasonable time is given, I am not inspired to take any view in favour of the petitioner in that regard. He suffered the recovery order in 2003; faced a proclamation for sale in 2006, March and in 2008, July, he states that he still hopes to liquidate the outstandings by other modes. Too far fetched a dream. W.P.(C) No.22695/2008 - 3 - 4. As regards the plea of one time settlement, the second respondent is a scheduled bank and therefore, all guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India to nationalised banks do not apply to the second respondent. On the facts and circumstances, even if the petitioner has a claim or a case that the second respondent has not applied any binding circular of the Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner has other remedies. At any rate, I do not find any persuasive ground to issue any further orders, in this case. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/29/7 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.