IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 WA.No. 1263 of 2011 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2274/2011 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------- 1. N.SADASIVAN, T.C.29/1064.AMBA GARDENS, PALKULANGARA (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RANI LATHA.P.S., W/O N.SADASIVAN, T.C.29/1064, AMBA GARDENS,PALKULANGARA (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF MYSORE, D.NO.TC/38/599(2), PONNI BUILDING, POWERHOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER -695 002. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, D.NO.TC/38/599(2), PONNI BUILDING, POWERHOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. AUTHORISED OFFICER FOR SALE, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002. BY SC, SRI.LAL GEORGE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WA 1263/2011 ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 12.2.2011 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 24.3.2011 /TRUE COPY/ J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1263 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon,J The steps taken by the first respondent-Bank resorting to the remedy under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for realisation of the amount due under a housing loan given to the appellants/petitioners, who are husband and wife respectively, were challenged in the Writ Petition filed with the prayers as follows: “i) Call for the records leading to Exhibits P1 to P3 issued under SARFAEISI Act so far as the same affect the title and ownership of the 1st petitioner regarding the 5.80 cents of land comprised in Survey Nos.954/4-3, 953/3 of Pettah Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District and the residential building therein and quash the same as well as all the steps taken pursuant to the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. WA.1263/11 2 ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other approriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 not to transfer 5.80 cents of residential site comprised in Survey No.954/4-3, 953/3 of Pettah Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District and the residential building therein belonging to the 1st petitioner which is furnished as security for the loan availed. iii) direct the concerned officer of the bank to give the 1st petitioner a detailed statement regarding her loan account and also to grant the benefit of OTS scheme or any other scheme beneficial to the petitioners, for which the petitioners are legally entitled while settling the loan account.” 2. When the matter came up for consideration on 24.1.2011, the Writ Petition was admitted by the learned Single Judge and the coercive proceedings were intercepted on condition that the writ petitioners deposited a sum of `5,00,000/- on or before 29.1.2011, which is stated as complied with. When the matter came up again on 8.7.2010, taking note of the submission that, copy of the statement of accounts was not furnished to the petitioners, necessary direction was issued to provide a copy of the same. However, in order to continue to avail the benefit of the WA.1263/11 3 interim order, the learned Judge directed the writ petitioners to deposit a further sum of `4,00,000/- on or before 25.6.2011, which was not complied with. The matter came up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge on 4.7.2011 and despite the non-compliance with the condition imposed, a lenient view was taken and the Writ Petition was disposed of, permitting the writ petitioners to discharge the liability in a phased manner, by granting the benefit of instalments in the manner specified therein, subject to satisfaction of the sum of `4,00,000/- already covered by the interim order dated 8.6.2011 within one week. The appellants are stated as aggrieved by the said verdict. 3. The learned counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of the respondent-Bank submitted with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit, that the loan sanctioned for renovation of the building and that the loan amount disbursed was not actually utilised by the writ petitioners/appellants diverting the funds; which made the Bank to recall the loan and to proceed with further steps, resorting to the remedy as provided under the SARFAESI Act. The writ petitioners/appellants, however have filed WA.1263/11 4 a reply affidavit, stating that the said submission is not correct and that the main relief sought for is to enable the appellants to clear the liability by extending the benefit of 'OTS'. 4. The learned counsel for the Bank submits, on instruction, that no 'OTS' Scheme is available as on date. Further, it is also pointed out that the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with regard to a matter like this, in view of the binding declaration of law made by the Apex Court in the decision reported in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & others [(2010)8 SCC 110). 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that the appellants are not entitled to have any further relief from this Court. If the appellants are aggrieved in any manner, as to the steps taken by the Bank, it is for them to pursue the remedy as provided under the relevant provisions of law, by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. WA.1263/11 5 6. Taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, all further coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 'one week' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, so as to enable them to pursue the matter as aforesaid. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs