IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1815 of 2009(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- R.SASIDHARAN NAIR, S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, "SARAVANA", PALLICKAL, NADUVILEMURI P.O., BHARANIKKAVU, ALAPUZHA 690 503. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATE BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, DORAISWAMY IYER ROAD, KOCHI, PIN 682 035. 2. K.NAZAR, PROPRIETOR, "FREQUENCY", KALYANI BUILDING, OPPOSITE SUDHINDRA HOSPITAL, CHITTUR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 1815 OF 2009-N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Second respondent Nazar availed a loan from the first respondent for his proprietary concern by name 'Frequency' establishment in Chittur road, Ernakulam, going by address shown in the writ petition. Petitioner, R. Sasidharan Nair of Bharanikkavu, Alappuzha says that he and his wife Rema Bhai Amma provided collateral security to support the loan availed by the 3rd respondent. There is absolutely no plea of any reason why the petitioner has become guarantor for the second respondent. The property provided as collateral security is now brought to sale under the SARFAESI Act since no pie has been repaid into the loan account. It is essentially a case, where this Court cannot find any situation to call for consideration of equity or any other circumstances, including compassion, to come to the aid of the petitioner's plea for interference with the SARFAESI Act proceedings. The plea is that the entire property need not be sold for the total outstandings. Action has been taken under Section 13 (4) and sale has been notified. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he can invoke provisions of the SARFAESI Act by moving the DRT under Section 17 of the Act. WP(C) No. 1815 of 2009 : 2 : With such a course is being available, I find that, there is nothing extraordinary on the facts of this case warranting any exercise of this Court in writ jurisdiction. This writ petition stands dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right, if any, to move the DRT, in accordance with law. (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) KMD