IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5684 of 2009(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SUJETH, AGED 43, S/O.SURENDRAN.V.K., PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, BISON VALLEY, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV.MR.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. ING VYSYA BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-36. 2. ING VYSYA BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, PANJIKUNNEL BUILDINGS, ERATTUPETTA ROAD, PALA. 3. AUTHORISED OFFICER AND REGIONAL HEAD (SME), ING VYSYA BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, PARAPILLIL ARCADE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-36. 4. SURESH.P.V., AGED 42, S/O.VIJAYA PILLAI NARAYANAN, PLACHERIL HOUSE, ADIMALI P.O., MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DIST. 5. SALIM.K.S., AGED 46, S/O.SIVASANKARAN, KAKKATTIL HOUSE, KALLARKUTTY P.O.,KATHIPARA KARA, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. R.S.KALKURA, SC, ING VYSYA BANK LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.5684 of 2009-E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges a sale by the authorized officer on behalf of the first respondent conducted under the SARFAESI Act. The plea is that the authorized officer had fraudulently made that sale in favour of one of his relatives who, in turn, has agreed to transfer or transferred that property to a third party for a higher consideration. Based on this plea, the petitioner attempts to demonstrate a case of fraud in the matter of conducting the sale under the SARFAESI Act. This is a matter which the petitioner has to raise exclusively before the DRT for two reasons. Firstly, Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides an exclusive remedy. Secondly, it is not for the writ court to adjudicate on any question of fraud which has a WP(C)5684/2009 -: 2 :- vitiating element in the realm of law relating to contract and which has to be pleaded and proved as settled by the plethora of decisions rendered by different courts, including the Apex Court. Without prejudice to that course, this writ petition is dismissed. It is clarified that any question, including any allegation of breach of the Security Interests (Enforcement) Rules, is also left open to be raised before the DRT. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/240209