IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19108 of 2010(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. M/S.INTEGRATED RUBIAN FOOD PRODUCTS, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, K.A.KUNJUMOIDEEN. 2. K.K.SHANU, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.KA.KUNJUMOIDEEN PARTNER, RUBIAN MEAT EXPORTS,AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. K.A.KUNJUMOIDHEEN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. V.M.ALIYAR, RESIDING AT PEARL BUNGALOW, CHANDIROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, DIRECTOR, M/S.INTEGRATED RUBIAN FOOD PRODUCTS, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. T.A.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED PARTNER, RUBIAN MEAT EXPORTS, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI - 682 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 8TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 016. 3. THE REGISTRAR, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 016. 4. C.H.A. RAHIM, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL JALEEL, M/S.INTEGRATED RUBIAN FOOD PRODUCTS AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 537. R1 BY ADV. SRI. P.V. SURENDRANATH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 19108 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners 2 to 4 and the 4th respondent are the partners of the 1st petitioner firm, who had availed a loan from the respondent Bank, based on the security interest created over the property in question. The case of the petitioner is that, in spite of satisfying the entire liability to the Bank and refund of the excess payment effected, the title deeds over which the security interest created have not been returned so far; which hence is sought to be intercepted by filing this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 4th respondent is actually not a necessary party, he being only the remaining partner of the first petitioner firm and has been shown as the 4th respondent only as a formal party, he being out of station. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, after satisfaction of the liability, the petitioners filed Ext.P14 application before the 2nd respondent/Recovery Officer for returning the title deeds and after considering the facts and circumstances, necessary order was passed by the 2nd respondent, which however was sought to be challenged by the Bank by filing I.A. 2061/2009 before the DRT, leading to Ext.P15 order whereby the dispute raised from the part of the Bank was deprecated and 2 WP(C) No. 19108/2010 the I.A. was dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,000/-. Still, the documents are not released to the petitioners, which made the petitioners to approach this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that even though the entire debt under the loan transaction has been satisfied by the petitioners, there is some dispute between the petitioners and some other '3rd party' in connection with some export transaction, wherein the fund transfer effected from the Bank is a subject matter of challenge and the Bank is also a party. It is in the said circumstance, that the title deeds are not released to the petitioners. 5. With regard to the rights and interest of the secured creditor, it is no more in dispute that the liability under the loan stands already satisfied. Having admitted satisfaction of the liability as above, it is no more open to the Bank/secured creditor to retain the title deeds. The matter has already been considered by the DRT, who has passed Ext.P15 order and there is no case for the Bank that the said order has been subjected to challenge any further. The dispute, if at all any, between the petitioners some 3rd party, to which the Bank is also connected with some or other manner, cannot be a ground to retain the title deeds any further. 6. In the above circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to return the title deeds belonging to the petitioners forthwith, at any rate, 3 WP(C) No. 19108/2010 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc