IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1079 of 2009(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SURESH KUMAR, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 40, T.C.NO.7/1217, MARUTHANKUZHI, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI MR.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, L.I.C.HOUSING FINANCE LTD., NAGERCOIL. 4. THE AREA MANAGER, L.I.C. HOUSING FINANCE LTD., 176-D-E, T.V.BUILDING, IST FLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ROAD, PALAYAMKOTTAI, TIRUNELVELI-3. 5. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PARASALA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. D.T.SURESH JACOB, PROPRIETOR, JACOB'S HOSPITAL, JACOBYIN, KULASEKARAM ROAD, MARTHANDAM P.O., K.K.DISTRICT. 8. SMT.VASANTHY SURESH, JACOBYIN, KULASEKHARAM ROAD, MARTHANDAM P.O., K.K.DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR R3 TO R6 BY MR.R.S.KALKURA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.1079 of 2009-C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Respondents 7 and 8 had an item of property. They had created certain interests in favour of SBT and LIC Housing Finance Limited. Thereafter, it appears that they transferred a portion of that property to the petitioner. The petitioner, ultimately, landed up in a situation where proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are taken at the instance of the LIC Housing Finance Limited and also SBT. The petitioner attempts to project a case that there is controversy between the parties as to the extent of the land covered by the mortgage in favour of the petitioner and the security interest in favour of the LIC Housing Finance Limited and the SBT cannot enforce any proceedings under the SARFAESI Act over the extent of land that the petitioner claims. He WP(C)1079/2009 -: 2 :- accordingly seeks a direction that the gate to the property claimed by the petitioner should be opened up permitting movement. He also filed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The DRT has issued an interim order therein fixing certain conditions. That is also under challenge. Having regard to the disputed questions of facts arising for decision, I am clear in my mind that the disputes between the parties should get resolved only before the DRT in the securitisation application or in appropriate other proceedings before competent authorities. The challenge to the conditions imposed by the DRT as per the impugned interim order cannot also be countenanced because, whatever be the private interest of the petitioner, vis-a-vis respondents 7 and 8, the claim of the SBT and the LIC Housing Finance Limited against the property cannot be ignored while moulding the interim relief on an application filed by the petitioner. Hence, WP(C)1079/2009 -: 3 :- without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner in the matter of his challenge to the proceedings as is now pending before the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, this writ petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/110209