IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4991 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRIPAD, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRIPAD, THEKKINIYEDATH THARANELLUR CHEMBAPPILLY MANA, KATTOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CANARA BANK LIMITED REP.BY ITS MANAGER, WEST PALACE ROAD BRANCH, THRISSUR. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK LIMITED, THRISSUR. 3. M/S.KOBBLER LEATHER MAN AND SHOE MALL, CITY CENTRE BUILDING, THRISSUR REP.BY ITS MANAGER. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.V.J.ANAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 4991 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 1st July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainabiilty of Ext.P10 sale notification issued by the Bank invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act for realisation of the amount stated as due from the concerend defaulter. The case of the petitioner as put forth by the learned Counsel is that the petitioner is an innocent victim and a 'Thanthri' by profession who does not know to write or read English and that in connection with some pressing need, he had to approach a private financier and obtained some loan, subscribing his signature to some blank papers. Making use of the said materials, a person by name ' Beeraj' created a power of attorney, on the basis of which, the property of the petitioner was conveyed to one 'Sunil Bava' who is the proprietor of third respondent . On coming to know about the proceedings, it is W.P.(C) No. 4991 OF 2010 2 stated that the petitioner has filed O.S. 319 of 2009 before the Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda as borne by Ext.P8 complaint and that there is an interim order of injunction granted on 09.06.2009 as borne by Ext.P9. In the meanwhile, the third respondent borrowed some amount from the respondent Bank on the strength of the immovable property so conveyed to the proprietor of the third respondent and in view of the default in the matter of repayment, the Bank proceeded with further steps against the third respondent, leading to issuance of Ext.P10 sale notice, which in turn is sought to be intercepted in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Bank submits with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit particularly paragraph '6', that the Civil Suit has been filed by the petitioner in collusion with the other parties concerned and that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the submissions or pleadings raised. It is stated that Mr. Sunil Bava, who is the proprietor of the third respondent has got rights and interests over the property by virtue of Ext. R1(a) sale deed dated W.P.(C) No. 4991 OF 2010 3 07.06.2006 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Kattoor, which has been executed by the power of attorney holder by name 0 'Beeraj' on the strength of Ext.R1 (b) power of attorney. Reference is also made to Exts.R1(c) and R1(d) possession certificates, as well as the location certificate dated 12.06.2006 issued by the concerned Village Officer, in favour of the person concerned (Sunil Bava). It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in spite of the vague averment as to the fraudulent conveyance effected on the strength of the power of attorney, no complaint or case has been filed in respect of the alleged offence against the party concerned but for Ext.P8 Civil Suit; which is only to stall the proceedings, in connivance with the others concerned who are behind the curtain. 3. This Court finds considerable force in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Bank. In spite of the completion of service of notice on the third respondent, there is no appearance for the said respondent. This Court finds that this is not a fit case warranting interference invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of W.P.(C) No. 4991 OF 2010 4 India and none of the grounds raised in support of the contentions could be held as tenable. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. It is also made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the rival contentions. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk