IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17905 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, MURALIKA, PERUMBHAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.BABY KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA PERUMBHAVOOR BRANCH REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER/SALES OFFICER UNION BANK OF INDIA, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. S.CHANDRA MOHAN, S/O.SANKARA REDDIYAR, KULAMAKKAL HOUSE, KAMALA KOTTAGE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY SHRI.A.S.P.KURUP, FOR R1 & R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.17905 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 8th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be a bonafide purchaser of 12 cents of property belonging to the 3rd respondent. That property was mortgaged with the 1st respondent bank. For realisation of the security for the loan amount due from the 3rd respondent to the bank, respondents 1 and 2 initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, against the said property. The same is under challenge before me. 2. The petitioner's contention is that he is prepared to pay the amount, but respondents 1 and 2 may be directed to grant him the facility of One Time Settlement for paying off the amounts due. 3. This is stoutly opposed by respondents 1 and 2. He would submit that before issuing the notification under the Act, the petitioner approached the bank and submitted that he would pay off the entire amount on behalf of the borrower. Thereafter, w.p.c.17905/08 2 the petitioner got the third respondent to execute a sale deed in his favour and took the stand that he will not pay the amount. According to respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner cannot be believed for a moment and his only intention is to protract the proceedings as far as possible. The Standing Counsel also points out that since there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the bank, the petitioner cannot challenge the proceedings initiated by the bank. 4. Having heard both sides, I feel that the petitioner can be given some time to pay off the entire amount on behalf of the borrower to save the property. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: Respondents 1 and 2 shall keep further proceedings in abeyance for a period of one month and a week from today. The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.7 lakhs within one week from today. The balance amount shall be paid within another one month. If the petitioner pays the amounts as directed above, further proceedings under the Act shall be dropped. However, if either the petitioner does not pay the Rs.7 lakhs within one week or any amount remains unpaid after one month and one week w.p.c.17905/08 3 from today, it would be open to respondents 1 and 2 to continue the proceedings as now initiated within having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings either to the borrower or to the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge