AUTHORISED OFFICER,STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE RETAIL ASSETS AND SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES Vs. .PREMJITH.G.S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No.7318/2014. The first respondent(petitioner in the writ petition) stood as a guarantor to the financial assistance availed by the 2nd respondent. Since there was no payment, the bank initiated steps under the SARFAESI Act . The first respondent approached the DRT, Ernakulam by filing S.A. No.237/2013. After considering the grievance projected, DRT passed Ext.P2 interim order directing the petitioner to satisfy a sum of Rs. 25 Lakhs and ordered status quo to be maintained till 14/01/2014. That amount was satisfied. The marriage of the first respondent's daughter was stated to be held on 14/4/2014. The petitioner filed another I.A. before the Tribunal seeking for further indulgence referring to the satisfaction of the sum of Rs. 25 Lakhs pursuant to Ext.P2. Thereafter, Ext.P4 order was passed directing remittance of the further sum of Rs.25 Lakhs on or before 15/3/2014 in order to avail the benefit of the interim stay. It is thereupon that the first respondent approached this Court. This court disposed of the writ petition directing the first respondent to satisfy 50% of the amount ordered to be paid as per Ext.P4 on or before 31/3/2014. Thereafter, the first respondent filed I.A. No.6266/2014. Therein the prayer was to extend the time to pay the instalment to be paid on 30/4/2014 by one month from that date. It is on the said petition that on 16/5/2014 the learned Single Judge extended the time to make payment, as directed by this court, by one month. It is feeling aggrieved by the same, the appeal is filed by the bank.

(2.) WE heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the first respondent.

(3.) WE notice that the prayer was one for extension of time by one month from the date of the I.A. On the basis of the I.A. the learned Single Judge extended the time by one month. The said period, iif it is understood as one month from the date of the order, would expire on 15/6/2014. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that we need not interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge granting extension of time,which is due to expire within 10 days from today. In such circumstances, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.