IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 8913 of 2011(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VALSALA @ OMANA, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. DEVAN, CHERPPUKKARAN VEEDU, AMBALLOR VILLAGE, VARAKKARA.P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM, TRICHUR. BY ADVS. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN, SRI.P.G.SURESH, SMT.K.VIDYA, SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. FEDERAL BANK LTD., MANNAMPETTA BRANCH, THRISSUR-680 325, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. SHEELA DEVAN, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. SADASIVAN, ARATHARA HOUSE, HOUSE NO.10/146, AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. PIN-682 315. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL), S.C, SMT.LIZA P.CHERIAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8913 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) against the immovable property wherein she is allegedly residing. It is mentioned that, the coercive steps were initiated consequent to default committed in repayment of a loan availed by the 3rd respondent from respondents 1 and 2. However, it was conceded that the petitioner is neither a borrower nor a guarantor with respect to the loan transaction. Contention of the petitioner is that she is residing in the building by virtue of rental agreement and a subsequent agreement executed for purchase of the property, and that she had remitted some amounts to the loan account, as per request of the 3rd respondent. 2. Eventhough this court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition, indulgence was shown in restraining confirmation of sale if any takes place, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1 lakh. It is stated that the W.P.(C).8913/11 -2- petitioner had remitted the said amount. Subsequently, the interim order was extended by directing further payment of Rs.1,50,000/- in two instalments falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or before 25.5.2011. 3. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the 3rd respondent, who is the borrower, had settled payment of the amounts due under the loan account and the title deeds were already returned. Accordingly it is conceded that no further steps are contemplated towards dispossession of the property in question. 4. The above submission is recorded. Since no further issue survives for consideration the writ petition is closed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb