IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12251 of 2010(F) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- N.A.SONNI, LOVEDALE, PADMAPRABA ROAD, KALPETTA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER, KALPETTA P.O. 2. GREEN AGRO TRADE LINKS (P) LTD., MAIN ROAD, KALPETTA P.O. 3. SUNNY MATHEW, THAMPUNAYIL HOUSE, MUNDARI, KALPETTA P.O. 4. ELIZABETH SUNNY, -DO- ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.12251 of 2010-F ---------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank in proceeding against the property of the petitioner, which was purchased by him from one Mr.Abdulla (who is not a party to this Writ Petition), who in turn had purchased the same from the fourth respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a 'bonafide purchaser', as there was a clear encumbrance-free certificate, as borne by Ext.P3. But now the petitioner has been served with Ext.P4 notice issued by the Bank under the relevant provisions of the SARFAESI Act, stating that the property had actually been the subject matter of a loan transaction availed by the second respondent Company, in which, the third and fourth respondents were the Directors, who had also given a ‘personal guarantee’ in respect of the property. Subsequently, the borrower turned to be a defaulter; under such circumstances, the Bank proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act. Even though, the matter was taken up in W.P(C) No.12251 of 2010-F 2 'Adalath', as borne by Ext.P5, nothing positively transpired and it is being further proceeded with; which hence is sought to be intercepted in this Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite explaining the sequence of events, the Bank has not paid any heed to the same and absolutely no action is being taken against the respondents 2 to 4, though the said respondents are having sufficient means and property to clear their liability. It is also contended that the fourth respondent had approached an ‘MP’ from Kerala by filing a petition and on forwarding the same to the first respondent Bank, as borne by Ext.P6 letter, no action is being taken by the first respondent Bank against the concerned respondents or their properties. 4. The learned counsel for the Bank submits, with reference to the contents of the statement filed before this Court, that the action being pursued by the Bank is strictly in conformity with the relevant provisions of law and that security interest was created over the property on 9.3.2004, whereas the petitioner chose to purchase the property only on 29.12.2008, that too without verifying the original title deed, which of course was with the first respondent W.P(C) No.12251 of 2010-F 3 Bank. 5. Going through the pleadings and materials on record, as referred to above, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot successfully sustain the challenge with respect to the security interest. However, this Court finds that the Bank has also given particulars of various items of properties belonging to the third and fourth respondents and others concerned with regard to the loan transaction, as given in the opening para of the statement. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that, along with the steps against the property now stated as purchased by the petitioner, the other items of properties are also being proceeded against and that absolutely no arbitrariness or discrimination is there, in the matter of realisation of the loan amount. 6. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it as a fit case to interfere with the impugned steps or proceedings. Accordingly, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rights and liberties of the petitioner, against the others concerned, are left open. Sd/- ab P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE