IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 20680 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MRS.SHEREEFA SIDDHI,WIFE OF SRI.SIDDY, AGED 40 YEARS,R/AT KOTTILINGAL HOUSE, PO ENKAKKAD, MANKARA,WADAKKANCHERRY,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,WADAKKANCHERRY BRANCH,THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN 680 686. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,ROUND SOUTH BRANCH,THRISSUR 680 001. 3. REGIONAL MANAGER,STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,REGIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR 680 001. 4. RAVINDRA KUMAR,S/O.C.C.AYYAPPAN, KALATHIL HOUSE,NEPPANS ROAD,KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 001. ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R1-3 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R1-3 SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.20680/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 9.6.11. P2 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 30.5.11. P3 COPY OF THE WRITTEN CONSENT DT 22.7.11. P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 22.7.11. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 20680 of 2011 H ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The fourth respondent was a defaulter of a loan availed of from respondents 1 to 3. The bank initiated proceedings against the fourth respondent under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, by filing S.A.No.176/2009. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, the mortgaged property was sold in auction on 28.02.2009 and the petitioner was the successful purchaser, who had offered `14.5 lakhs. 2. Accordingly, the amount was deposited in the bank. It appears that the fourth respondent filed application to set aside the sale, as a result of which, the sale was not confirmed and the property was not delivered. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner entered into a compromise with the fourth respondent. A joint application W.P.(C) No.20680/2011 : 2 : was filed by the parties and the Tribunal passed Ext.P1 order. Accordingly, the sale was confirmed and sale certificate also has been issued. 3. It appears that the amount due to the bank is much less than `14.5 lakhs and excess amount is available in the amount deposited by the petitioner. The request now made by the petitioner is that the deposit was throughout in her name and that interest has accrued and that the interest should be ordered to be refunded to her. She made such request to the bank but the bank did not accept the request and, therefore, this writ petition is filed. 4. Statement has been filed by the bank and in paragraph 5 thereof, it has been stated thus:- “It is submitted that there are attachment orders and garnishee proceedings pending before the Sub Court of Thrissur in Pauper O.P.No.14/2009 filed by Antony @ Anthony as against the fourth respondent in which there is an application pending not to disburse the balance amount W.P.(C) No.20680/2011 : 3 : due to the fourth respondent. Likewise, in another suit filed by one Shabu as O.S.No.942/2009 in which the respondent bank is the 2nd defendant claiming an amount of Rs.3,17,300/- from the fourth respondent. There is yet another suit as O.S.No.882/2007 filed by one Joy and others in which also there is an application for injunction not to disburse the amount due to the fourth respondent. In view of the other garnishee proceedings in the Civil Suits instituted as against the fourth respondent and in view of the attachment orders issued by the Civil Court, the respondent bank is not in a position to disburse the interest accrued on the Term Deposit relied on by the petitioner.” 5. Therefore, according to the bank, apart from everything else, they are prevented from considering the request of the petitioner because of the orders passed by the civil court. The deposit in question was made by the petitioner towards consideration for the property to the W.P.(C) No.20680/2011 : 4 : defaulter, the fourth respondent. Therefore, eventhough the deposit was in the name of the petitioner, the excess amount available is to be refunded to the defaulter, in terms of Section 13(7) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Therefore, any amount available in deposit in excess of what is due to the Bank, is the amount due to be disbursed to the defaulter, and as a result of the orders passed by the civil court, which are mentioned in paragraph 5 of the statement filed by the bank, it cannot be disbursed so long as the said orders remain in force. In that view, at any rate, petitioner cannot have any claim unless the petitioner succeeds in getting appropriate orders from the civil court. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/02/09