STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MADHUSUDHANAN. K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant-Bank as well as learned counsel representing the respondents in the above four appeals.

(2.) THE respondents herein were the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge in four different writ petitions.

(3.) IN that direction process of auction of the produce of ginger which was stored in the warehouse concerned came to be initiated by the appellant- Bank which was objected to by the respondents-borrowers by approaching the learned Single Judge. Their main grievance was that the price of the dry ginger at present is very low as there is no demand in the market and by March, 2013, the prices are likely to go up and therefore they would be able to realize better price for the produce of ginger. As a matter of fact, the respondents/writ petitioners have not placed any study report pertaining to the market with reference to ginger. Therefore, it is very difficult to accept the contention of the respondents/borrowers that in the month of March, the prices are likely to be increased. It is also difficult to accept that at present, the demand is very less for the ginger.