IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 21333 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAINY VARGHESE, W/O. VARGHESE, AGED 45 YEARS, CHIRAYATH THRISSUKKARAN HOUSE, THALORE P.O.,THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.R.REENA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, SPECIAL ASSETS MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, SATHABDI BHAVAN, MINI BYPASS, P.O. GOVINDAPURAM,KOZHIKODE. 2. MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, PUDUKKAD BRANCH. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION OFFICE, K.S.E.B OLLUR. 5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION OFFICE, OLLUR. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R3 TO 5 SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR FOR R2 SMT.N.N.PRASEEDA FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.21333 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Prayer in the writ petition is to direct the 1st respondent Bank not to initiate securitisation proceedings against the property which was already bid in auction in execution of a civil decree. The petitioner, inter alia, sought directions against the authorities of the Kerala State Electricity Board to re-connect Electrical supply to the building situated within the property. Pleadings of the petitioner in brief is as follows. In the year 1994 the petitioner's husband availed a commercial loan from the 1st respondent Bank to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs for doing some business. The petitioner's husband left abandoning his family in the year 1996 and his whereabouts are not known. The petitioner is left with two children, one among them mentally retarded and destituted, and she is not in a position to make any repayment. The 1st respondent Bank filed a civil suit and obtained decree, in execution of which the Bank bid in auction of the property. The sale stood confirmed as on 22.1.2002. Contention is that property has not been delivered so far. Petitioner is seeking direction for permitting to pay off the W.P.(C).21333/09-J 2 liability and to direct the 1st respondent Bank to return the property which they have bid in auction from the civil court. Further contention of the petitioner is that the Electricity Board had disconnected supply and the petitioner has been put to miseries. According to the petitioner she is ready and willing to pay the entire liability if some waiver in interest is allowed. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated that the petitioner had approached this court suppressing all material facts and the writ petition is filed as a sheer abuse of the process of the court. According to respondents 1 and 2 the Bank obtained a decree as early as on 14.6.2000 and filed execution petition for realisation of a sum of Rs.7,94,028/-. In the execution proceedings the sale was conducted on 22.1.2002 and was confirmed on 12.9.02. Thereafter the property was taken possession and delivered to the Bank through Amin deputed from the civil court on 23.3.04. Except a small portion of residential building occupied by tenants, the entire property has been actually delivered to the Bank. With respect to the portion occupied by the tenants also, symbolic delivery was effected. Contention of the petitioner that Ext.P2 is a notice issued under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is disputed. What is W.P.(C).21333/09-J 3 intimated through Ext.P2 is only about further sale proposed with respect to the property. According to the respondents the Bank is the absolute owner of the property at present. It is further stated that inspite of several opportunities given to the petitioner to settle the account, the petitioner had not availed such opportunities and even the OTS benefit granted during the year 2004 has not been materialised due to default on the part of the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that she had offered an amount of Rs.3 lakhs, after filing the writ petition. But the Bank had refused to accept the same. According to the learned counsel the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the amount provided the property is given back to her. 4. Having considered rival contentions and facts and circumstances of the case it is evident that the sale with respect to the property in question stands concluded and the property is now in absolute ownership and possession of the respondent Bank. It is also evident that the Bank had recovered the amount due under the loan transaction, by purchasing the property in auction sale. Facts being so, I am afraid this court can interfere with the matter at this stage and issue any direction to the Bank to settle the loan account by accepting any amount from the W.P.(C).21333/09-J 4 petitioner. On the other hand a re-conveyance of the property by way of sale by the Bank to the petitioner, alone is the possible way. But such a recourse is totally dependent upon the decision of the respondent Bank, for which the petitioner has to make proper representation before the authorities concerned. 5. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the respondents 1 and 2 seeking re-conveyance of the property on affording payment on a reasonable basis, proportionate to the amount for which the property was sold in execution, along with interest or expenses whatever incurred by the Bank. It is for the authorities of the respondent Bank to take a decision on such offer, if made. I am sure that the authorities of the 1st respondent Bank will deal with such a representation if received, without any further delay. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb