IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36597 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. GEORGEKUTTY ABRAHAM, ANITHOTTATHIL (H) KAROOR.P.O., PALA. 2. LIXI GEORGEKUTTY, ANITHOTTATHIL (H), KAROOR.P.O., PALA. 3. THRESSIAMMA ABRAHAM, ANITHOTTATHIL(H) KAROOR.P.O., PALA. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI.DIJO SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANGER, KOTTYAM. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THEKOTTAYAM DISTRICT BANK LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.36597 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are challenging the steps taken by the respondents Bank invoking the machinery under the SARFEASI Act for realisation of the amount due from the petitioners. When the matter came up for admission before this Court on 17.12.2009, the coercive steps were intercepted, on condition that the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs.4 lakhs on or before 8.1.2010. On 2.2.2010, the matter was adjourned by two weeks, at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, to ascertain whether the condition imposed by this Court was satisfied or not. There is no case for the petitioners even today, that the condition has been satisfied and that the matter has to be examined by this Court on merits. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that the 'Sale' of the property in question , over which security interest was created by the petitioners is already over and if at all the petitioners are aggrieved in W.P (C) No.36597 of 2009 2 any manner, there is an effective alternative remedy provided under the statute. 3. In the above circumstances, particularly when the petitioners have failed to honour the condition imposed by this Court, it does not appears to be a fit case calling for interference of this Court invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed; however without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedy available. The petitioners are also at liberty to approach the Bank for appropriate reliefs, including OTS or for some or other concession/allowance, if any. P.R RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.36597 of 2009 3 W.P (C) No.36597 of 2009 4