IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 37729 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ICHIKUTTY AMMA, AGED 72 YEARS, D/O LATE PARUKUTTY AMMA, THOTTANCHERRY, NETTISSERY VILLAGE AND TALUK, TRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.MAHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, CALICUT PALAYAM BRANCH, WHITELINE BUILDING, KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT-673002 REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, SARC, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY THE CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER. 3. P.SREEDHARAN NAIR, SREENAYANAM, KOTTAKUNNUMEL P.O., CHEVAYUR, CALICUT-17. 4. NANDINI.E., W/O P.SREEDHARAN NAIR, -DO- -DO- 5. D.GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O DORAISWAMY, 365, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD -678007. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 37729 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs. “(a) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to proceed against the 1.50 acres of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.17/5 and 6 of Pazhassi Village mortgaged with it for realization of the amount due to it from M/s. Glass King, Calicut and respondents 3 to 5, before proceeding against the petitioner's property in Sy.No.384/1 and to proceed against the petitioner's property only in case the main property is insufficient to satisfy the debt due to the bank. (b) Stay all further proceedings against the petitioner's residential property in Sy.No.384/1 of Nettikkara Village till the sale of 1.50 acres of land and building thereon in Re.Sy.No.17/5 W.P.(C) No. 37729 OF 2009 2 and 6 of Pazhassi Village and mortgaged to the bank. © Grant such other reliefs as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case.” 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the property, which is having an extent of 1.5 acres of land in Kannur district, is having very high potential and market value and even the sale of a portion of the property is enough to clear the liability towards the respondent Bank. It is further submitted that the property situated in Thrissur, which is having an extent of nearly 5 cents with a residential building situated therein, might be proceeded against, only if the Bank finds that the sale consideration procured on sale of the property in Kannur district is not enough to wipe out the liability under the loan transaction. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits, with reference to the contents of the statement filed before this Court, that the Bank was very much considerate to the cause projected by the petitioner and some properties have already W.P.(C) No. 37729 OF 2009 3 been released to the petitioner, so as to facilitate 'private sale' and on completion of the sale, the allocable extent of sale consideration was remitted to the account of the petitioner and the liability was scaled down to substantial extent . The learned Counsel also submits that the sale of the remaining properties will not be enough to satisfy the required amount to close the loan transaction, particularly in view of the fact that the total outstanding liability is nearly 63 lakhs, whereas the market value of the property notified for sale will come only about Rs.39,75,000/-, which however is disputed from the part of the petitioner stating that the upset price fixed and the valuation made at the hands of the respondent Bank are not correct or proper . In any of view the the matter, the property comprised in Kannur district and the property in Thrissur district can be subjected to sale by separate proceedings as the said properties are situated at two different places and the sale of one property is not dependent or connected with the other in any manner. 4. This being the position, there is no hurdle or harm for the first respondent to finalise the sale proceedings of the W.P.(C) No. 37729 OF 2009 4 property in Kannur and if the amount, likely to be generated from the sale of the said item is not enough to settle the loan account, they could very well proceed against the other property in Thrissur and realize the due amount after the sale. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk