IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 34086 of 2007(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- SMT. MERCY GEORGE, W/O. K.T.GEORGE, KATITHARAN HOUSE, CHEMBUKAVU P.O., TRICHUR-680 020. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ANGAMALI BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER. 2. MASTER EDWIN (MINOR, AGED 11 YRS), S/O. LATE GIGI K.GEORGE, REPRESENTED BY THE GUARDIAN K.K.GEORGE, S/O. LATE KURIAN, RESIDING AT KACHAPILLY HOUSE, MALLUSSERY, VATTAPARAMBU PO., ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. 3. MASTER ALWIN, MINOR, AGED 6 YEARS, S/O. LATE GIGI K.GEORGE, REPRESENTED BY THE GUARDIAN K.K.GEORGE, S/O. LATE KURIAN, RESIDING AT KACHAPILLY HOUSE, MALLUSSERY, VATTAPARAMBU PO., ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. SRI. K.B.NAIK, S/O. NARAYANA KESAVA NAIK, VADAKOOT LANE, RAIL CROSS ROAD, KARUKUTTY P.O. 5. SMT. ROSY, W/O. MR. JOSE, MANAVALAN HOUSE, KARUKUTTY P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST. 6. SRI. PRABHAKARAN NAIR C.K., S/O. MR. KRISHNAN NAIR, CHANDRATHIL HOUSE, KARUKUTTY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SC, SBT SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.34086/2007 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP EXECUTED BY LATE GIGI K.GEORGE, PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 7/01/1997. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT REGARDING RELEASE OF COLLATERAL SECURITY DTD. 22/07/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT,2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.1/09/2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT REGARDING RELEASE OF HER PROPERTY OFFERED AS SECURITY ON PAYMENT OF HER SHARE AS WELLA S THAT OF THE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 DTD. 1/04/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. NIL. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE VALUATION STATEMENT OF THE PROPERTIES OFFERED AS SECURITY TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. NIL. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY SRI. K.K.GEORGE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 3/10/2006. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK SRI. K.K.GEORGE WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SIRFAEST ACT AGAINST M/S.GALAXY MARBLES AND GRANITES DTD. 11/10/2006. EXT.P9: COY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY in WHICH THE POSSESSION NOTICE DTD. 30/01/2007. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE PLEADINGS IN S.A.NO.17 OF 2007 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 BEFORE THE D.R.T., ERNAKULAM DTD. 7/03/2007. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER IN S.A.NO.17 OF 2007 PASSED BY THE D.R.T., ERNAKULAM DTD. 19/11/2007. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DTD.25/12/2007. /TRUE COPY/ Kss P.S.TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 34086 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 27, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition the challenge is against the securitisation proceedings. 2. Interim orders were passed on 24.1.2008 and 29.1.2008 and the petitioner was given freedom to buy the property by payment of the reserve price. It is now submitted by the standing counsel for the bank that the petitioner did not avail of the opportunities thus granted by the aforesaid orders. According to the standing counsel, on the other hand, petitioner submitted a proposal for settlement of the liability. 3. Be that as it may, admittedly the firm, of which the petitioner was also a partner, is a defaulter and therefore the bank is entitled to initiate proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and it is for the bank to decide which property is WP(C) 34086/07 Page numbers to be proceeded against. I do not find any illegality calling for interference in a writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition fails and will stand dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-