Kerala High Court
Baby Mathew vs Suresh Mathew on 26 March, 2012
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/6TH CHAITHRA 1934
WP(C).No. 6814 of 2012 (B)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
BABY MATHEW, AGED 51 YEARS
VETTOOR HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR POST, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. SURESH MATHEW
NELLUMCHIRA VEEDU, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
FEDERAL BANK LTD., KANJIKUZHY BRANCH
KANJIKUZHY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
3. CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, FEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE.
4. FEDERAL BANK LIMITED
FEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
5. CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER)
KANJIKUZHY BRANCH, K.K.ROAD, FEDERAL BANK LTD.
KOTTAYAM-686 004.
6. THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER
ASSET RECOVERY DEPARTMENT, FEDERAL BANK LTD.
FEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE.
7. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
(KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP), ERNAKULAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
BY ADV. SRI.A.ANTONY, SC FOR BANK
BY ADV. SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY
BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC NO.6814/12
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DTD.20.11.2011.
EXT.P2 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE NOTIFIED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
DTD.17.7.2012 PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA.
EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.6.3.2012 FILED BEFORE RESPONDENTS
3 AND 4 WITHOUT THE EXHIBITS.
EXT.P4 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.13.3.2012 IN WPC NO.5912/12.
EXT.P5 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.16.3.2012 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
DTD.15.3.2012.
EXT.P7 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4, DTD.17.3.2012.
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
Rp
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 6814 OF 2012
===================
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 5912/12. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment with the following directions:-
(i) If the petitioner remits Rs.15 lakhs before the second respondent on or before 2.00 pm on 19/3/2012, sale scheduled as per Ext.P7 will stand deferred.
(ii) If payment is made as above, the fourth respondent shall consider Ext.P8 representation made by the petitioner and pass orders thereon and communicate their decision to the petitioner.
(iii) Stay of Ext.P7 will continue until the decision is communicated, as above.
2. Accordingly, the petitioner remitted `15,00,000 on 16/3/2012 and Ext.P5 is the receipt. The complaint of the petitioner is that even before 16/3/12, when he made remittance, the 6th respondent rejected Ext.P3 representation and issued Ext.P6 communication. It is alleged that Ext.P6 is illegal in as much as by Ext.P4 judgment, this Court directed the Chairman and Managing Director to consider whether the representation was considered by the 6th respondent.
3. However, learned standing counsel appearing for the WPC.No.6814/12 :2 : respondent Bank has produced before me the original of Ext.P3 representation and the order passed thereon by the Chairman of the Bank. This order shows that the Chairman, the 3rd respondent of the Bank had ordered rejection of the representation. Therefore, it is obvious that Ext.P6 is only a communication issued by the 6th respondent conveying the decision taken by the 3rd respondent. If these are the facts, there is no substance in the plea of the petitioner that as against the direction requiring the 3rd respondent to decide Ext.P3 representation, it was the 6th respondent who passed orders.
4. Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was willing for negotiation to settle the dispute. It is stated that without giving him such an opportunity, the representation was rejected. Thereupon, counsel for the Bank pointed out that though they received two tenders, those tenders have not been opened in view of the pendency of the writ petition. Now that the tenders have not been opened and that the petitioner wants to negotiate the issue, I direct that the petitioner shall appear before the 6th respondent, the competent authority on 30/3/2012 at 11.a.m. Thereupon, the 6th respondent will WPC.No.6814/12 :3 : negotiate with the petitioner and, if possible, the dispute will be settled. In the light of the above, I direct that subject to the petitioner appearing before the 6th respondent on 30/3/2012, status quo as it is obtaining now will be maintained until a decision is taken in the matter. Needless to say that any such decision taken shall be communicated to the petitioner.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp