IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19777 of 2008(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- C.P.MOHAMMAD KUTTY, S/O.C.P.MOIDEEN, CHACKALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, 30/140, NADUVILANGADI, POOKAYIL P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SMT.M.J.SHINSA MOL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT THRISSUR, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED, TIRUR BRANCH, PAN BAZAR, TIRUR VILLAGE, TIRUR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT THRISSUR, ST.MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD, P.B.NO.502, THRISSUR 20. 4. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. B.S.KRISHNAN (Sr.), SC - R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.19777 OF 2008(D) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The third respondent is a scheduled bank. The first respondent is its Board of Directors and the second respondent is the Branch Manager of one of its Branches. 2. The Bank has resorted to recovery under the RDB Act. The petitioner/debtor thereunder seeks to avoid the sale of the attached property. His plea is that there was a settlement between parties, however that, he could not comply with the conditions therein and that, as of now, he is prepared to pay the amounts covered by the settlement, if the Board of Directors of the Bank is willing to consider his request for such reliefs. 3. The learned counsel for the bank points out that the recovery order was not subjected to any appeal and it, having become final, it is impermissible for the petitioner to seek intervention of this Court in writ jurisdiction. It is urged that the W.P.(C) No.19777/2008 - 2 - conduct of the petitioner, by itself, does not inspire confidence to generate any further ameliorative steps from the bank by way of consideration of any request, particularly, because that the understanding reached at about two years ago was not acted upon by the petitioner. It is also pointed out that if the petitioner has any bonafide stand, he can move the appropriate authority under the RDB Act for further enlargement of time. It is also specifically pointed out that a writ may not be issued as bank is not 'state' for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, at any rate, when the transaction is in the realm of private contract between the lender and debtor. 4. The objections of the bank are quite unsustainable and the adjournment of the case on the previous day was only to ascertain the dues of the petitioner. In that regard, the bank was asked as to whether it would consider the request of the petitioner, if he is ready to pay off an amount of Rs.15 lakhs for averting the sale, as of now. However, this is not acceptable to the bank, as is represented through its learned counsel. W.P.(C) No.19777/2008 - 3 - In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and leaving open all the contentions of the writ petitioner and the bank. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/3-7-08 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.