IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29493 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JOSEPH AUGUSTINE, S/O.E.J.AUGUSTINE, EDAKKARA HOUSE, POST PARAVANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. VINCENT.T.K, S/O.T.P.KURIAPPAN, BLUE NILE COTTAGE, PARAPPANANGADI ROAD, TIRUR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.933, CHAKKARATHUKULAM, POST WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., KOZHIKODE REGION. 3. THE MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, PUTHANATHANI BRANCH, POST PUTHANATHANI. BY ADV. SRI. GEORGE VARGHESE, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 29493 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioners who are partners of a firm which availed various loans from the 3rd respondent Bank for business purpose, is challenging the proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The loans in question were secured by mortgage of six items of immovable properties. According to the petitioners the respondents have already taken possession of the properties after issuing notice as contemplated under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. It is now apprehended that the properties taken over possession will be sold in pursuance of the proceedings initiated. According to the petitioners they are ready and willing to pay off the liability by arranging private sale of W.P.(C)No. 29493 of 2009 -2- some of the items of properties mentioned in Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. 2. It is mentioned that the 1st petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition as W.P.(C) No.26028/2009. In the said writ petition it was specifically contended that item No.6 mentioned in the schedule of Ext.P2 notice is the residential house of the 1st petitioner and inpsite of 1st petitioner approaching the Bank with an offer to pay reasonable market price for the said item of property, the Bank was not prepared to accept such an offer . 3. Standing counsel appearing for the respondents had produced a copy of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.26028/2009 for my perusal. It is noticed that on 22nd September, 2009 the above said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent Bank to consider offer of the 1st petitioner herein and to take a decision regarding feasibility of entering into a private sale of the said item of the property, with the 1st petitioner or with any of his nominees. This court had shown indulgence in further W.P.(C)No. 29493 of 2009 -3- directing the Bank to abstain from sale of that particular item of property, till such decision is taken. It is submitted by the standing counsel that pursuant to such direction the 1st petitioner has not so far made any concrete offer with respect to purchase of that particular item of property. 4. It is noticed that the 1st petitioner herein had filed the earlier writ petition almost with identical prayers. In that writ petition he had restrained his claims, with respect to the property described as item No.6. Now the 1st petitioner along with another partner had filed this writ petition seeking the very same relief with respect to other items of property also. It is noticed that inspite of indulgence shown in the earlier writ petition the petitioners have not made any concrete offer for purchase of property described as item No.6 in the schedule. Therefore the repeated writ petition can only be considered as an attempt to protract the proceedings in one way or other. It is a shear abuse of the process of this court and the petitioners does not deserve any indulgence in this matter. W.P.(C)No. 29493 of 2009 -4- 5. Accordingly I find no ground to interfere and the writ petition is dismissed. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/