IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23278 of 2011(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.PAUL, S/O.KUNJUVAREED,PARAMBLY HOUSE, KARUKUTTY P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN 683 576. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE SRI.JOHNSON K.KURIEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER (UNDER SARFAESI ACT),HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED,HDFC HOUSE, P.B. NO.1667,RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, M.G. RAOD,KOCHI-682 015. 2. CHANDRIKA, THRIVENI COTTAGE,MUTTATHARA, KALLUPALAM ROAD,ANGAMALY P.O., PIN 683 572. ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL FOR R1 SRI.BOBBY THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.TONY INCHIPARAMBIL FOR R1 SMT.AMBILY.S. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23278 of 2011(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION EFFECTED IN 'MANGALAM'DAILY DATED 15.7.2011. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 12.08.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23278 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT A third party to a proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act who also participated in the sale proceedings by a financial institution, has filed this writ petition challenging the sale, effected by the 1st respondent, of the security asset, in favour of the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, there is fraud in the sale proceedings and, therefore, this Court should interfere. The question as to whether there is fraud in the sale proceedings is a question of fact. Except the sale notice the petitioner has not produced any evidence before this Court to prima facie prove fraud. The petitioner's remedy, in such circumstances, lies in filing an application under Section 17 of the Act challenging the sale proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In fact, the Supreme Court has time and again discouraged High Courts from interfering with the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets W.P.(C)No.23278/11 2 and Enforcement of Security Interest Act under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the sale proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.23278/11 3