IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 20282 of 2007(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- B.S.T.LIMITED, AUDIO HOUSE, N.H.BYEPASS, PALAKKAD-678 007, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, M.V.RAMANADAN. BYMR..A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS.MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR MR.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK, NO.10, KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R1,2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.20282/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 13.10.05 FROM THE BOARD FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 2.8.05 FROM THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DT. 13.2.06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 20.2.06 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 26.9.06 IN WRIT PETITION 5388/06. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 28.5.07 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 30.5.07 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FROM THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 20282 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th May, 2009. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by a Company complaining that in proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, while taking over properties mortgaged, respondents 1 and 2 have taken possession of other properties, which do not form part of the mortgaged properties. Since the dispute was only relating to the identity of the mortgaged properties, by Ext. P5 judgment in W.P(C) No. 5388/2006, I directed the Tahsildar concerned to measure the properties and demarcate the same. Accordingly, the 3rd has demarcated the properties as per Ext. P6. The grievance of the petitioner now is that although properties have so been demarcated, the respondents 1 and 2 have not handed over possession of the same. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any such other writ, order or direction, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to restore to the petitioner the extent of 222.69 cents of land which was taken possession of by them in excess of what they were legally entitled to take possession of and which the 3rd respondent has held not to fall under the mortgaged extent of land. (ii) to declare that the 1st and 2nd respondents have no legal right to retain possession of the extent of 222.69 cents of land in Resurvey Nos. 132/7 – 31.72 cents, 133/6 – 13 cents, 133/5 – 11 cents, 133/4 – 13 cents, and 133/20 – 93.37 cents, 132/14 – 15.50 cents, 132/17 – 24.35 cents, and 132/5/1 – 20.75 cents. (iii) to the 1st and 2nd respondents to restore to the petitioner 222.69 cents of land which was not mortgaged to the 1st and 2nd respondents, pending disposal of the writ petition.” 2. Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that they have no objection in the properties belonging to the petitioner not mortgaged to the bank being handed over to the petitioner as per Ext. P6. W.P.C. No. 20282/07 -: 2 :- However, he submits that in the building comprised in the properties to be handed over also, the hypothecated machinery are housed and the bank may be given six month's time to remove the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in W.P(C) No. 13559/2006, this Court has permitted M/s. B.P.L. Ltd., to take back certain machinery belonging to them as identified by the advocate commissioner appointed by this Court as per his report dated 10-9- 2007 and the right of that Company in respect of the machinery belonging to that Company as identified by the commissioner also may be protected. 3. It is also reported that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner-Company has been ordered to be wound up by this Court in C.P.No. 23/2006 and a provisional liquidator has taken charge. In view of the fact that there is no dispute regarding the identity of the properties and the machinery, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The provisional liquidator appointed by this Court shall take steps to immediately take over the properties demarcated as belonging to the petitioner-Company as per Ext. P6 forthwith. The respondents shall see that the property as identified in Ext. P6 is handed over to the provisional liquidator. The provisional liquidator shall see that the machinery in the building in question is kept intact to be handed over to the respective parties as per the judgment in W.P(C) No. 13559/2006 and allow them to remove the same as per the abovesaid directions. However, the respective parties shall remove their respective machinery within six months from today. I make it clear that the provisional liquidator is to take possession of only those W.P.C. No. 20282/07 -: 3 :- properties which are not subject matter of the mortgage in favour of respondents 1 and 2 as identified in Ext. P6 pursuant to the direction in Ext. P5 judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/