JOSE MANI Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR SPL ARBITRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is one of the guarantors for the loan availed by the principal debtor, who is none other than the son of the writ petitioner. When the principal debtor defaulted the payment, the arbitration proceedings were initiated against the principal debtor and the guarantors. An award was passed on 23/05/2005 for an amount of Rs.4,04,178/-. Neither there was any challenge nor any payment made by the writ petitioner or his son or any other guarantors. The property of the writ petitioner was pledged with the bank, at the time of availing the loan. Therefore, the fifth respondent bank proceeded against the writ petitioner for sale of his property and to realise the amount. This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P2 auction sale notice, dated 18/10/2006 for an amount of Rs.8,10,406/-.

(2.) I have heard the elaborate arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank, Muvattupuzha Rural Branch and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

(3.) Exhibit P6 is a representation dated 04/12/2006, preferred by the writ petitioner before the fifth respondent bank, requesting that he may be given the facility of one time settlement scheme for the repayment of the entire amount due to the bank. The counsel for the fifth respondent, however, submits that the bank is not in receipt of the same. The counsel for the writ petitioner showed the receipt for having sent the representation through courier service.