IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35115 of 2009(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T. CHOCKALINGAM, S/O. THAYUMANVAN, 667- 669 BHARATHIYAR ROAD, KEEZHAKASAAKKUDI, KOTTUDHERY, KARRAIKKA. 1, PONDICHERY. BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA, MR.C.ANIL KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMECC, II FLOOR, MAHESWARI BUILDINGS, M.G. ROAD, THRISSUR - 1, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNDER THE SECURITISATION & RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002, STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMECC, II FLOOR, MAHESWARI BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, THRISSUR. 3. M/S. COOKIES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VARIJAKSHAN MANGAT, THRIPTI, BEHIND PARAMEKKAVU TEMPLE, NEAR NAVAMI FLATS, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.P.V. SURENDRANATH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.35115 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. General Manager of a company, who had defaulted payment of amount availed in a Bank loan, is the writ petitioner. Petitioner is seeking direction against the respondents 1 and 2 to hold in trust a sum of Rs.2,56,500/- along with interest due thereon which allegedly is the amount due to the petitioner from the company, the 3rd respondent. It is admitted that the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is at the stage of proclamation of sale of the assets of the 3rd respondent Bank. As far as the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act is concerned, the petitioner is a total stranger and the petitioner could not in any way successfully challenge the proceedings. Probably the petitioner may have a claim on amounts if any recovered by the respondents 1 and 2 in excess of the amount to satisfy their claims under the Bank loan account. Therefore I am of the opinion that the writ petition is highly premature. 2. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is W.P.(C).35115/09-H 2 dismissed without prejudice to the rights if any available to the petitioner to raise claim against excess amount if any received by the respondents 1 and 2 through sale of any assets of the 3rd respondent company. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb