IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4824 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.ABRAHAM, ILLATHUPUTHEN VEETIL, CHALUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIB HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, MISSION QUARTER, TRICHOOR. 2. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., NRI BRANCH, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., CENTRAL JUNCTION BRANCH, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BAN FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.4824 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the Director of a company called M/s. Indus Soft Data Transcriptions Pvt. Ltd. It would appear that the company had availed of a loan of Rs.66 lakhs on 29.4.2000, based on the security offered by the company. Subsequently also the company availed of Rs.4 lakhs sanctioned on 13.11.2000. According to the petitioner forging certain documents, the respondents made it appear that fixed deposit of that of the children of the petitioner as well as that of the petitioner have been offered as security for the 2nd loan. It is stated that the amount under deposit has been appropriated by the bank on the basis that the same was offered as a security. Now the petitioner says that he wants to settled the issue and approach the Bank but there was no response from the Bank. WP(c).No.4824/09 /2/ First of all, I my view, the direction sought for against the first respondent Bank itself is not maintainable as the Bank is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court. Secondly, the transaction in question is contractual and involves several disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction. If at all the petitioner has any claim, it can be adjudicated in a suit and not in a proceedings under this court. Therefore, without prejudice to the contentions of both sides I dismiss the writ petition. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/