IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 2107 of 2011(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- BABU, ADHARSH NIVAS, KALLUMTHAZHAM PO, KILIKOLLOOR,KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, CHINNAKKADA BRANCH, KOLLAM 691 011. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. ABIDA BEEVI, SABEEDA MANZIL, VADAKKEVILA PO, KOLLAM 691 010. * ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED: 4. MOHAMMED SHAFEEK.S, ALIF MANZIL, K.B.NAGAR-199, ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM- 691 011. * ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 9/3/2011 IN I.A NO.4164/2011. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN R4 BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.SAJU J PANICKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: krj WP(C).No. 2107 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 1.9.2008 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.184/2009 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM P3: COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION DATED 4.11.2009 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN OS. NO.184/2009. P4: COPY OF THE AWARD OF LOK ADALATH DATED 9.11.2009 ALONG WITH THE COMPROMISE PETITION. P5: COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION IN OS NO.184/2009 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM. P6: COPY OF THE AUCTION SALE NOTICE DATED 7.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- R4(A):COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION OF AUCTION BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2107 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 notice for sale, proclaimed under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner is inter alia seeking direction to permit remittance of the balance amount as per Ext.P4 award of the Lok Adalat and on that basis he is seeking to quash the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. The proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated by respondents 1 and 2, since the 3rd respondent had defaulted payment of loan availed by her from respondents 1 and 2. According to the petitioner, he had entered into an agreement with the 3rd respondent for purchase of immovable property, which is the secured asset, and is being proceeded against under the SARFAESI Act. It is stated that a suit filed by the 2 W.P.(C).No.2107 of 2011 petitioner in this regard, before the civil court, was settled through Ext.P4 award passed by the Lok adalat. According to the petitioner, in terms of the award, the petitioner was permitted to make deposit of the sale consideration due under the agreement and the 3rd respondent was directed to transfer the property on payment of such amounts. Contention of the petitioner is that, the 1st respondent Bank was also a party in the civil suit and Ext.P4 award is binding on them also. However, it is conceded that the petitioner had failed to make payment of the amounts within the time stipulated in Ext.P4 and consequently the property was not transferred into his name. 2. When the writ petition came up for consideration, this Court had stayed confirmation of sale if any takes place on the basis of Ext.P6 notice. Subsequently, it was reported that the property in question was auctioned by the additional 4th respondent for a sum of Rs.16,05,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2 raised contentions to the effect that, 3 W.P.(C).No.2107 of 2011 they were not party to the settlement arrived under Ext.P4 and nobody representing them had signed in the award of the Lok Adalat. It is also contended that the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P4 and therefore he could not raise any contention challenging the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act against the property in question, which is the secured asset. It is the further contention that respondents 1 and 2 are proceeding against the property on the basis of the valid mortgage created and the petitioner had in locus standi to challenge such proceedings. 3. However, I noticed the fact that the sale has already taken place for a sum of Rs.16,05,000/-, and this Court passed an interim order dated 31.5.2011, permitting the petitioner to make deposit of the said amount on a provisional basis, in a non-lien account before the 1st respondent Bank, subject to further orders to be issued in this writ petition. Such deposit was insisted to be made on 4 W.P.(C).No.2107 of 2011 or before 15.6.2011. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that, the petitioner could not make payment of the amounts as stipulated. While considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that, the terms of Ext.P4 award is not binding on respondents 1 and 2, who are proceeding against the property by virtue of a valid mortgage created, invoking provisions of the SARFAESI Act. On that premise, the contention taken by respondents 1 and 2 to the effect that the petitioner has in locus standi to raise challenge against the proceedings, will survive. 5. Further it is noticed that, the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P4 award of the Lok Adalat. The petitioner deserves no indulgence from this Court in view of the fact that, he had also failed in complying with the conditions stipulated through the interim order. Hence, I am declining to involve the discretionary jurisdiction vested on this Court. 5 W.P.(C).No.2107 of 2011 6. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that, the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/