AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
None appears for the petitioners when the matter
was called today and then taken up for hearing after
passing over the case.
The petitioners'' contention is against the sale
scheduled of the property by Ext.P4 on 24.02.2017.
The writ petition itself was filed on 20.02.2017. On
21.02.2017, considering the fact that the sale was
posted on the very next day and also taking into
account the undertaking of the petitioners that the
petitioners would pay an amount of Rs.25 lakhs on or
before 01.03.2017, the sale scheduled on 24.02.2017
was adjourned to 10.03.2017, to facilitate compliance of
the undertaking. There was also a submission made of
a One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme and this Court
had been careful enough to direct that, if at all, OTS
fructifies, the substantial amount paid as per the
undertaking would be considered as amounts paid
under the OTS. The petitioners did not comply with the
undertaking and when the matter was posted on
03.03.2017, again an undertaking was made that the
amounts would be paid on or before 09.03.2017, since
this Court had adjourned the sale to 10.03.2017. The
petitioners failed to comply with that order also and
adjournment was sought for and granted on
16.03.2017, 17.03.2017 and 21.03.2017 for compliance
of the undertaking. The petitioners have not paid the
amounts nor are the petitioners represented by any
Counsel when the matter was taken up.
The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank also
submits that earlier the petitioners had approached this
Court, in which Ext.P2 order was passed. In Ext.P2 the
overdue amount, in respect of five term loans, was
directed to be paid with accrued interest in twelve
equal and successive monthly instalments, commencing
from 20.02.2016. There were no payments made and
after the instalment period was over, the petitioners
filed a Writ Appeal, which was rejected as per Ext.P3.
Again, when sale proceedings were initiated,
specifically as per the default clause in Ext.P2, the
petitioner had filed the above writ petition and has
successfully seen to it that the sale is adjourned without
paying any amounts.
Considering the entire circumstances, this Court is
of the opinion that the petitioner has clearly abused the
process of this Court and in such circumstance, the writ
petition would be dismissed with exemplary cost of
Rs.25,000/- to the Kerala High Court Advocates''
Welfare Fund Trust, which shall be recovered by the
Bank along with the other dues and deposited to the
Kerala High Court Advocates'' Welfare Fund Trust.
Issue a copy of this judgment to the Kerala High Court
Advocates'' Welfare Fund Trust.