IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 37247 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.PANAKKAL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED N.C.R.BUILDING,KALPETTA,WAYANAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,VARGHESE.P.P, PANAKKAL HOUSE,KARIYAMVADI.PO,WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,(DEPUTY ZONAL MANAGER),CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED,ZONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO:209,THAMARASSERY DIOCESE SHOPPING COMPLEX,INDIRA GANDHI ROAD,KOZHIKODE-673 004. 2. THE MANAGER, ATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, KALPETTA BRANCH, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673 121. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, WAYANAD-673 122, KALPETTA. 4. THE TAHSILDAR,VAITHIRI TALUK, VAITHIRI.P.O,WAYANAD. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KANIAMBATTA VILLAGE, KANIAMBATTA,WAYANAD. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 37247 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 12th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondnet Bank invoking the machinery under the SAFAESI Act . Quite a lot of contentions have been raised, on legal as well as factual aspects. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that since the account has never been declared as 'NPA', the bank is not justified in proceeding with further steps, that too, without passing any orders under Section 13(4), but for directly filing Ext. P12 application before the District Magistrate for providing necessary assistance under Section 14 of the Act, which has very much prejudicially affected the rights and interests of the petitioner. It is also contended that a number of documents have been forged at the hands of the respondent Bank, which hence is sought to be intercepted in this Writ Petition. 2. With reference to the contents of the counter affidavit filed from the part of the respondent Bank along with the documents produced and marked as Exts.R1(a) to R1(f), the W.P.(C) No. 37247 OF 2009 2 learned Counsel appeairng for the respondnet Bank submits that, the averments and allegations are not correct or sustainable. It is contended that various facilities were extended to the petitioner in the year 2003 and thereafter, in the next year, the enhanced extent of Rs.3 lakhs more was availed by the petitioner, thus taking a total of Rs. 28 lakhs. It is also submitted that the amounts were not disbursed in bulk, but only on production of requisite invoices in connection with the export of the goods and the requisite portion of the amounts procured by the petitioner was being given credit to, against the loan account and the balance, if any, was being credited to the current account. With reference to the entries in the documents Ext.R1(a) to (f), it is submitted that the last remittance made by the petitioner was on 21.10.2005 and there was absolutely no payment with regard to '6' accounts. Of course, there are other accounts as well, i.e. more than 13 accounts. There were some instances of export and all these accounts, other than the '6' accounts forming the subject matter of Exts.R1(a) to (f) have been closed. With regard to the '6' accounts as projected by the W.P.(C) No. 37247 OF 2009 3 Bank, there was no payment at all from October, 2005 and there was no export as well. It was in the said circumstance, that the Bank was constrained to declare the accounts as 'NPA' on 31.03.2006, which hence is perfectly on order, according to the Bank 3. The learned Counsel for the Bank also submits that, as to the various documents produced by the petitoner, Col.15 of Ext.P4 series of documents/certificates issued by the Bank, was left blank and the entry in the said column has been filled up 'manually' on the basis of the date of collection in the due course. Unlike this, in the case of Ext.P17 to P32 produced by the petitioner along wih the reply affidavit, all these columns have been 'typed'. The learned Counsel submits that all these documents, i.e., Exts. P17 to P32 are quite forged ones at the hands of the petitioner and that the said certificates have never been issued by the Bank, simultaneously asserting that the signature and seal affiixed thereon are 'not original', which hence is liable to be proceeded with separately. 4. The insinuation made from the part of the Bank is W.P.(C) No. 37247 OF 2009 4 strongly rebutted by the petitioner and the learned Counsel submits that these documents have actually been forged at the hands of the respondent bank so as to mulct the liability upon the petitioner in a worng and unsustainable manner . 5. Going by the facts and figures, it is quite obvious that there is many a dispute with regard to the factual points, which can be resolved only by adducing evidnece and not by the proceedings of this nature, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction unde Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. This being the position, it is for the petitioner to agitate the matter by resorting to the statutory remedy available and to substantiate the case by adducing evidence, which of course can be sought to be defended by the respondents by adducing evidence. 7. In the above circumstance, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, reserving the righs and liberties of both the sides to proceed with the matter before the appropriate forum, contemplated under the Statute. Since there is a specific case for the petitioner that no cause of action W.P.(C) No. 37247 OF 2009 5 has been brought to the notice of the petitioner ; more so since after the issuance of 13(2) notice, the respondent Bank directly approched the District Magistrate by filing Ext. P12 application, the petitioner is permitted to file statutory appeal and if any such appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of recipt of a copy of the judgment, the same shall be treated as a valid and proper appeal. The said appeal, along with the interlopcutory application, if any, shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. . P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk