IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 554 of 2008 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26575/2007 Dated 30/10/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------- 1. K.N.SHEREEF, S/O. LATE M.NOOHUKANNU, JAS COTTAGE, KAIMANAM, PAPPANAMCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 018. 2. K.A.ASHRAF, S/O. LATE M.NOOHUKANNU, TOUCHSTONE MANOR, MATHRUBHOOMI ROAD, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 035. 3. M.NAZEEMA, D/O. LATE M.NOOHUKANNU, SHARO MANZIL, NEAR PUTHENTHERY PALLY, KAYAMKULAM. 4. K.N.SAJITH, S/O. LATE M.NOOHUKANNU, TC 51/50, JAS COTTAGE, KAIMANAM, PAPPANAMCODE PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 018. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS V.JACOB (PARAVUR) & SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, P.B.NO.307, M.G.ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, CHALAI BAZAR BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 3. REJI MATHEW, OONNUKALLAM THOTTIYIL HOUSE, KATTACHIRA, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 572. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI & SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 554 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th March, 2008 JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J: The Appellants are the writ petitioners. The Writ Petition was filed seeking the following reliefs: "i) To set aside the alleged sale of the property owned by the deceased mother of the petitioners and to quash Ext.P4 Notice or set aside the same by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-auction the property by following proper procedure as per law." 2. The appellants claim to be the legal representatives of one late Mariyam Beevi. The said Mariyam Beevi stood as a guarantor for the loans taken by M/s. Jyothis and M/s. Associated Enterprises from the second responsdent Bank. There was default committed by the loanees. The respondent Bank initiated steps under the provisions of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the Act). The property has been sold. Ext.P4 is the impugned notice issued by the respondent Bank calling upon the petitioner's mother to vacate the property which has been sold under the Act, upon failure of which, it is stated that the Bank will be constrained to resort to forceful eviction. 3. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition. In doing so, WA 554/08 2 the learned Judge has taken note of various litigations which have been fought in respect of the matter. The learned Judge has taken note of the fact that the matter had engaged the attention of the Tribunal. There was also reference to a Writ Petition filed seeking the aid of this Court in taking possession through the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act. The purchaser had also filed a Contempt Petition complaining disobedience of the Judgment of this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants and also the Respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the stipulation in Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 that on purchase of immovable property, the purchaser shall immediately deposit 25% of the bid amount to the authorized Officer was violated by the auction purchaser. It is stated that the property was sold for a consideration of Rs.16 Lakhs. It is stated that Rs.4 Lakhs should have been deposited immediately after the auction. However, only Rs.2 Lakhs were deposited. It is alleged that the auction proceedings adopted were illegal. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the last date for receipt of the tender was 8.3.2006, but the tender was submitted only on 9.3.2006. 5. We would think that the above contentions may not be available to the appellants, having regard to the litigations which have been referred to by the learned Single Judge. The guarantor, the predecessor in interest of the appellants had carried the matter before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had apparently rejected the claim of the predecessor in interest of the appellants. The appellants being the successors in interest of the guarantor, are bound by the decision of the Tribunal. So, they are bound by the various proceedings in this Court in the Writ Petitions ultimately resulting in an order under Section 14 of the Act. In such circumstances, it WA 554/08 3 is not open to the appellants to reopen the issue. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, kbk. JUDGE