LILLY BAI Vs. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are mother and son, who are aggrieved by the recovery proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent against the 1st petitioner who stood surety to a loan availed by the 3rd respondent. Earlier also, when proceedings were taken against the 1st petitioner, the 1st petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C).27712/2012. At that point of time, the contention raised by the 1st petitioner was that the surety's properties were not proceeded with. This Court directed the representation filed in that respect, to be considered by the respondent Corporation; however, categorically found that, that would not absolve the liability of the guarantor.

(2.) THE present contention is that the 2nd petitioner who is the son of the 1st petitioner has obtained a decree from the Civil Court against the 3rd respondent herein who is the principal borrower. Petitioners pray that till the execution proceedings are concluded, the recovery against the 1st petitioner be stayed. This Court does not see any ground, legal or moral, to grant such a relief. It can only be found that this is another dilatory tactic by the 1st petitioner to stall realisation of the amounts due to the 1st respondent. Needless to say, if the 1st petitioner satisfies the loan amounts availed by the 3rd respondent or such amounts are recovered from the 1st petitioner, the 1st petitioner also would have a remedy before the appropriate Civil Court to proceed against the 3rd respondent. But for that, the 1st respondent cannot be interdicted from proceeding against the 1st petitioner for recovery of the dues which the 1st petitioner had stood guarantee for.