The petitioner is aggrieved with the non-consideration of Ext.P6 application by the 1st respondent herein. The brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner had sanctioned a loan to the additional 5th respondent for purchase of a vehicle in the year 1998. The principal amount was Rs.8.35 lakhs. The 5th respondent had hypothecated the vehicle, as also mortgaged 1.5 Acres of property owned jointly by the respondents 3 and 4, as security for the loan. The respondents 3 and 4 stood as sureties and also executed necessary documents for creation of mortgage. The 5th respondent is said to have paid three installments and then sold the vehicle, in violation of the agreement and without informing the petitioner. Default was also committed in the loan account. 2. On default being committed and the vehicle hypothecated to the Bank having been sold to a third party, the petitioner proceeded against the mortgaged property. The property was brought to sale by the Bank and the same was purchased by the Bank itself for a total amount of Rs.30 lakhs. The sale was confirmed in the year 1999 and sale deed was executed on 10.06.2011.
3. After the sale deed was executed, the respondents 3 and 4 approached this Court with a writ petition numbered as W.P(C) No.19425/2011. Wherein the sale made by the Bank was challenged. The writ petition of the sureties was disposed of by Ext.P1. Ext.P1 found that there is no irregularity in sale. However, following directions were issued in the said judgment.
i. The petitioners shall, on or before 31.03.2012, deposit with the third respondent Bank, the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lacks only) together with simple interest thereon calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from 25.6.2009 till 31.3.2012. The petitioners shall also deposit on or before 31.3.2012 an amount equal to 5% of the bid amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and the expenses incurred by the bank to have the sale deeds registered in its favour on 10.6.2011.
ii. The bank shall, for the purpose of enabling the petitioners to deposit the said amounts, inform them in writing within one week from today of the stamp duty and registration charges paid by it to have the sale deeds executed and registered on 10.6.2011.
iii. The bank shall, in the event of the petitioners complying with the aforesaid directions and remitting the amounts directed to be paid, within one week from the date of deposit of the amounts move the Registrar of Co-operative Societies/Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies shall grant the necessary permission by passing appropriate orders within one week from the date of receipt of the request from the bank for permission to reconvey the property.
iv. The bank shall thereupon reconvey the property to the petitioners and the fourth respondent and if there is any other joint owner, to him or her also, by executing appropriate deed or deed or conveyance.
v. Needless to say the petitioners, the fourth respondent and other grantees, if any, shall meet the expenses in that regard including stamp duty and registration charges.
vi. the reconveyance shall be effected and the prior documents of title returned to the grantees in the event of the petitioners complying with the directions contained above, within an outer limit of two months from 31.3.2012.
vii. Needless to say, in the event of the petitioners failing to remit the amounts in the manner directed above, this writ petition shall stand dismissed and it will be open to the bank to obtain delivery of possession of the property and to deal with the property in such manner as it deems fit.
4. In fact, what prevailed upon the learned Single Judge was that, in any event, under Section 25 of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Act, 1984 the property would have to be sold by the Bank and hence equity would commend the sale being made to the sureties itself, who are the original owners of the property.
5. Admittedly, no amounts were paid as per Ext.P1.
An appeal was filed before this Court itself which was disposed of by Ext.P2. The Division Bench of this Court found that there should be a re-assessment of the liability by the petitioner Bank. The Division Bench hence directed the Bank to keep the possession of the property for three months and directed re-assessment of the liability. The petitioner Bank was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition.
6. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the judgment of the Division Bench was stayed by Ext.P3. Ext.P4 interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicates that even before the Supreme Court, the respondents had sought for time to pay off the amounts. Ext.P4 is dated 21.10.2013. However, no payments were made and by Ext.P5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the SLP vacating the directions of the Division Bench. Hence, Ext.P1 judgment holds the field. No amounts having been deposited as per Ext.P1 or even as per the undertaking made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, nothing survives, insofar as the challenge against the sale confirmed in the name of the petitioner bank.
7. It is to be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has disposed of the matter, issuing the following directions :-
“ In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to vacate the various directions given by the Division Bench of the High Court.
All the same, we are inclined to grant three months' time to the respondents to pay off the amount due to the Bank.
Needless to say, if the amount is not paid within the aforesaid period, the property already mortgaged and purchased by the bank could be sold in auction and the balance amount, if any, be returned to the respondents after realizing the amount due to the Bank.”
8. It is in pursuance to such direction that the 1st respondent herein has been addressed by Ext.P6. The additional respondents obviously have not complied with the further time granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to settle the liability. The additional respondents 3 to 5 were issued notice by this Court. Though service is complete, none have turned up before this Court.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court having vacated the directions of the Division Bench in Ext.P4, by Ext.P5 and no payments having been made as per the directions in Ext.P1 or Ext.P5, the Bank becomes the ultimate owner of the property, entitled to deal with it in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1984. Section 25 prescribes a prior sanction from the Registrar for disposal of the property. Ext.P6 hence has to be considered expeditiously within a period of one month from today. It is made clear that nothing remains in the matter, but for the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ext.P5 Bank as to how the amounts in sale are to be apportioned. The Bank would necessarily comply with such directions.
Writ petition allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge