IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 1539 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13158/2010 Dated 01/07/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): / PETITIONERS -------------- 1. BOBBY A.TITUS,AGED 38 YEARS S/O.M.A.TITUS, BUNGLAVIL HOUSE, ST.JAMES ROAD, VYTTILA, COCHIN-19 2. BINDU P.B, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.BOBBY A.TITUS, BUNGLAVIL HOUSE, ST.JAMES ROAD, VYTTILA, COCHIN-19 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORIZED OFFICER) ICICI BANK, ICICI BANK TOWER NO.I,COMMISSION ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. ICICI BANK, EMGEE SQURE OPP.PADMA JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM COCHIN 682 035 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. ADVOCATE LIMMY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF FOR R1 & 2 SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH FOR R1 & 2 SRI.V.R.REKESH FOR R1 & 2 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN FOR R1 & 2 MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1539 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the appellants and Standing Counsel for the first respondent-Bank. The amount due to the Bank is around Rs.17.5 lakhs. However, counsel for the appellants submitted that some payments were made during pendency of this Writ Appeal and consequently the amount payable to the Bank is lesser than the above stated amount. We do not think there is any need to verify the exact amount payable to the Bank which will be revealed from the accounts maintained by the Bank. However, since appellants submitted that they have found out a buyer for the mortgaged property and they will be able to sell the property and settle the arrears due to the Bank, we feel the Bank should give sufficient time to the appellants to sell the property and settle liability. The appellants and the purchaser can enter into agreement for sale of the property subject to clearance from the Bank and approach the Bank to make payment to the Bank and settle W.A. No.1539/2010 2 liability. The appellants are granted one month from today to approach the Bank with the sale agreement for sale of the property and if appellants approach the Bank with concrete proposal, there will be direction to the Bank to withhold recovery proceedings for a further period of one month after execution of sale agreement for the appellants to settle liability by making payment directly or through the purchaser. However, sale deed shall not be executed or possession handed over to the purchaser without clearing the liability to the Bank and without getting the NOC. If appellants do not give any concrete proposal within a month from now, the Bank is free to proceed with sale of the property. In view of the full payment being made without the necessity of Bank proceeding for recovery, the Bank should consider some incentives to the appellants. Recovery proceedings will remain stayed for a period of one month from now and if appellants furnish copy of the agreement for sale within that period, the Bank W.A. No.1539/2010 3 should withhold recovery proceedings for another one month thereafter and on failure, Bank can proceed for recovery. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms