IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19819 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ BINNY VARGHESE, MADHURAMCHERIL HOUSE, "SUN SHINE", THBRISSUR ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM-680 503. BY ADV. SRU.C.S.ULLAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 3. STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE OFFICE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STRESSED ASSET RESOLUTION CENTRE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, 40/974, IIND FLOOR, R.S.BUILDING,M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, BROAD WAY BRANCH, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 7. SMT.SUNITHA.E.P, PLOT NO.16, PANCHAVADY COLONY, AMBELIPADAM ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682019. 8. REGHU.K.J, PLOT NO.16, PANCHAVADY COLONY, AMBELIPADAM ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682019. 9. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 5TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 TO 9. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.19819 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT After arguing the matter for quite sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his submission to a request that the petitioner may be permitted to exclude SARFAESI Act proceedings in view of the pendency of proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and different courts. Learned counsel for the bank however states that the proceedings before the DRT is the only proceeding to which the bank is a legitimate party and that the different suits have really no bearing on the rights of the bank in relation to the loan transaction. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner quite in extenso, the controversies are essentially in the realm of creation of power of WPC19819/2008 -:2:- attorneys, the scope of power of attorney documents, the actions of the power holder in entering into transactions and also parting consideration. The materials also appear to disclose that the petitioner has also received amounts under demand drafts. Under such circumstances, I do not deem it appropriate to tie down the bank to any proceedings in the civil court, particularly when, the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act stand outside the jurisdiction and reach of the civil court and the proceedings cannot be interfered with by the civil court. But it has also to be ensured that any legitimate right of the petitioner qua the power holder and any party other than the bank could also be worked out reasonably. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, while I find no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned proceedings, this writ petition is WPC19819/2008 -:3:- ordered directing that if the petitioner remits the entire amounts due to the bank as covered by the SARFAESI Act notice within an outer limit of two weeks from now, such payments shall be provisional and subject to the decision of the proceedings pending before the DRT. It is also clarified that the other proceedings, if any, pending before the different courts will not have any impact between the bank and the petitioner which essentially have to be worked out before the DRT. If payment, as aforesaid, is not remitted within the specified period, the respondents can proceed with the impugned action, in accordance with law. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl/1.7.08