IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32022 of 2008(K) -------------------------------------- CMP.2481/2007 of C.J.M.,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ N.K.ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.ABOOBACKER HAJEE, 'WHITE HOUSE', IRINGAL, VATAKARA (VIA), CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN: 673 521. BY ADV. SRI.LIFFY P. FRANCIS SRI.C.BHASKARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. VIJAYA BANK, CHALAPPURAM BRANCH, INDUS AVENUE, KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT - 673 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER. 2. VIJAYA BANK, INDUS AVENUE, KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT - 673 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K. ANAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO.32022 OF 2008 (K) ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Faced with SARFAESI Act proceedings on account of default in repayment of amounts due to the first respondent, petitioner obtained Exhibit P2 judgment from this Court on 10-9-2007. The entire aspects of the case was then considered and this Court acted on the offer of the petitioner to pay all the outstandings and therefore, essentially tied down the bank to its offer that if an amount of Rs.3 crores with interest at PLR from 22-3-2007 is paid, the matter could be treated as settled. Exhibit P2 judgment was issued on consensus and it was ordered that in settlement of the outstandings, Rs.3 crores with interest at PLR from 22-3-2007 will be paid, of which, an amount of Rs.1.60 crores would be paid within a period of one month, that is, on or before 10-10-2007 and the balance on or before 31-12- 2007. Therefore, stricto senso the offer of the bank could be available, even on the strength of Exhibit P2 judgment, only till 31-12-2007. If the petitioner had remitted the amount of Rs.1.60 crores in terms of that judgment, the bank had to release property worth that amount from the security, to facilitate the petitioner to have private sale etc. W.P.(C) NO.32022 OF 2008 (K) - 2 - 2. The petitioner did not pay even the first instalment at Rs.1.60 crores. Exhibit P2 judgment has worked itself out. Now bank cannot be compelled to stand by its offer to settle the transaction for Rs.3 crores with interest at PLR from 22-3-2007, which agreement was on the basis of what is recorded in Exhibit P2 judgment regarding part payment by 10-10-2007 and full payment on or before 31-12-2007. 3. More than one year has gone through after Exhibit P2 judgment was issued. Now, the petitioner states that he cannot be dispossessed and is prepared to stand by the agreement referred to in Exhibit P2. His plea is that the bank had moved against the petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and obtained an order, from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, which order intervened in the petitioner's attempt to settle the transaction and such judicial order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, essentially drove off intending purchasers. I am not prepared to swallow this contention. It is apparent from Exhibit P4 that the proceedings before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate were pending simultaneous with Exhibit P2 judgment. Exhibit P4 order was, therefore, recorded on 8- 10-2007, that in view of the order of this Court, the said proceedings are not sustainable and the proceedings are accordingly dropped by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is unfortunate that the petitioner W.P.(C) NO.32022 OF 2008 (K) - 3 - attempts to use even that order to his advantage by saying that he could not abide by the terms of Exhibit P2 judgment on account of Exhibit P4 order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The plea is, plainly, frivolous. 4. The learned counsel for the bank also states that even after Exhibit P2 judgment, the petitioner had moved this Court and the said proceedings have also become final. The writ petitioner has also pointed out that either he or his brothers who are also co-obligants had been trying to get some relief even through the Ministers in the Union Cabinet. The banking sector cannot be crippled in the economic scenario and cannot wait for such debtors who fail inspite of different opportunities even by judicial intervention. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/3/11