IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4835 of 2009(A) ------------------------- SA.41/2008 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------------- MASTER NITHIN ROBBY,REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND SOJAN GEORGE, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, KALATHIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM.P.O,PIRAVOM. BY ADVS. MR.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU MR.S.KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- SYNDICATE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER), REGIONAL OFFICE, PIONEER TOWERS, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM-31. BY ADV. MR. R.S.KALKURA. SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 4835 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT The facts of this case are being looked into for the purpose of ascertaining whether this court should interfere at all in the matter. The petitioner is the son of one Sojan George, who, it is stated, committed suicide. The mother of the petitioner, on query by court, is reported to have eloped with somebody else. On account of distress action under the SARFAESI Act, petitioner, represented by a next friend, filed a securitization application before Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is stated that the next friend is not a relative, kith or kin of the petitioner but is a member of the local panchayat. It appears that a settlement was placed before Debt Recovery Tribunal as Ext.P2 and P3 order was issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal recording that the entire amounts would be paid off by 30.9.2008. It was also recorded that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has already been paid. I enquired with the learned counsel for the petitioner, of the source of the income of the minor petitioner for raising the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is stated that some friend had lend it. 2. Without abiding by the terms of the time frame in Ext.P3, the petitioner, through the next friend, moved the Legal Service Authority on the pretext that the bank would not release the WP(C) 4835/2009 2 documents. Ext.P5 award is passed, recording the submission of the bank that on payment of the entire amounts, the documents shall be released. Obviously, no time frame was fixed, since that was not a matter on which parties had entered into any agreement before the Lok Adalath. 3. So much so, within the time frame covered by Ext.P3 order of Debt Recovery Tribunal, the matter remains to be settled and hence bank has further proceeded under the SARFAESI Act. Now the petitioner, through his next friend, wants this court to issue direction to the bank to defer further proceedings till the minor petitioner attains majority. For that, the minority status of the petitioner is an irrelevant consideration. This is because, action taken is only against the estate of the deceased father of the petitioner. Therefore there is really no action against the minor. Even if I were to assume that the minor could have a role in settling the transaction, all that is stated on behalf of the petitioner, represented by his next friend, is that the minor could himself collect documents from the bank since it is apprehended by the petitioner that owing to his minority status, he may not be able to receive the documents from the bank. This is not so, in law. When the debt is discharged, the documents have to be released. Bank has recognized minor petitioner as the legal representative of Late Sojan George. This means that on satisfaction WP(C) 4835/2009 3 of the debt, the documents could be released by sending it by registered post with acknowledgement due, in favour of the minor. Even if the documents are retained with the bank, till the petitioner attains majority, nothing would happen even if the loan is paid off even earlier, unless of course, petitioner wants to still pass on those documents to some other person in the legal procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground interfere with the finality attained by Ext.P3 in any manner. Writ petition fails and the same is dismissed subject to what is aforesaid regarding release of documents. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/19/2