IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 30174 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHAMEEM SALIM, W/O.SALIM, THOTTATHUL HOUSE, MANNUTHY P.O., TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, CHEVOOR, TRICHUR. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TRICHUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1 SRI.K.M.ANEESH FOR R1 SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 1069 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------------- W.P(C) No.30174/2009 & 1069/2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T Sustainability of the steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the machinery under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the amount stated as due from the borrower and the sureties, is the subject matter of challenge in these Writ Petitions. 2. W.P(C) No.30174 of 2009 has been filed by the sureties stating that the steps taken by the respondents are not correct or sustainable in so far as the Bank has not chosen to realise the amount from the principal borrower. Subsequently, the principal borrower also approached this Court by filing the other Writ Petition, ie W.P(C) No.1069 of 2010. It is seen that the steps as above were intercepted by this Court on condition that the petitioner satisfied a portion of the liability. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the condition imposed upon the principal borrower has already been complied with, whereas the condition imposed upon the sureties is still to be satisfied. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both W.P(C) No.30174/2009 & 1069/2010 2 the cases submits that the principal borrower has taken earnest efforts to clear the entire liability of the Bank and that the petitioner might be permitted to satisfy the same by way of reasonable instalments. 4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the bank as well, who submits that a total sum of about Rs.2,60,000/- plus further interest and cost is due, to be cleared by the petitioners. 5. After hearing both the sides, the petitioner in W.P(C) No.1069 of 2010 ie, the principal borrower is directed to satisfy the entire liability as undertaken by him by way of 'six' equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30th of March 2010; to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. The payment, if any effected by the principal borrower or the sureties during the pendency of the above proceedings, shall be given due credit to and only the balance amount need be paid in connection with the loan transaction. Subject to this, all further coercive steps being pursued against the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that, if any default is committed in satisfying the due amount as W.P(C) No.30174/2009 & 1069/2010 3 above, it will open to the Bank, to proceed with appropriate steps in accordance with law for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petitions are disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.30174/2009 & 1069/2010 4