IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24634 of 2008(G) ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 385/2004 IN SA.87/2008 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ----------------------- P.I.SAFIYA BEEVI, PROPRIETRIX, M/S.P.R.MILLS, VELLAPPALLY HOUSE, BUILDING NO.PMC/VII/278, M.C.ROAD, KANJIRAKKADU, RAYONPURAM PO., PERUMBAVOOR-683 543. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. UCO BANK, MATTANCHERRY, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTD BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNDER SARFAESI ACT, UCO BANK, MATTANCHERRY, ERENAKULAM. 3. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE FOR R1 SRI.V.J.JOHN FOR R1 SRI.C.I.ABRAHAM FOR R1 SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.24634 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner availed certain facilities by way of loan from the first respondent. On account of default in repayment, the bank took action under the SARFAESI Act and proceeded against the security property and issued possession notice. The property, which is the security property belongs to the guarantors. They filed writ petition before this Court against such action and lost it. They carried a writ appeal, which was also unsuccessful. Thereafter, this writ petition is filed by the principal debtor on the premise that she has filed a securitization application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on regular basis. The owners of the security property, themselves, have lost the writ petition and writ appeal. The mere plea of the petitioner that she has a moral obligation; may be a legal one, to protect the interest of the WPC24634/08 -:2:- guarantors, is insufficient to persuade the writ court to come to the aid of the petitioner. That would be virtually contradicting the judgments dismissing the writ petition and writ appeal by the guarantors. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings. However, it is clarified that the last sentence of the interim order dated 14-8-2008 recording the statement of the petitioner that she may be able to avert the sale and that she may do so in consonance with the first respondent will continue to be recorded without prejudice to the rights of parties. Writ petition is dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, sl. Judge.