IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30565 of 2008(L) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BINDU PADMAKUMAR, MANAKKIRI HOUSE, THANATH PARAMBU, MARADU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. JAYADEEP, S/O.K.G. PAVITHRAN, KALLUKADAVIL, CHAKKARAPARAMBU, THAMMANAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, M.G. ROAD, NEAR COLLEGE GROUND, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI. K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.30565 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner holds out Ext.P1 agreement for sale by the 1st respondent in her favour, and states that she paid the 1st respondent the advance in terms of that agreement, and had agreed to repay a loan availed by the 1st respondent from the 2nd respondent Bank; however that, since her relationship with the 1st respondent become strained, the 1st respondent has induced the 2nd respondent Bank to initiate action under the Securitisation Act. According to the petitioner, she has invested huge amounts and is residing in the building in the property. She contends that, because, the debtor-creditor relationship between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent is one for a long term loan and the liability of the 1st respondent was only to pay off the amounts in instalments, the petitioner is also entitled to get the benefit of paying the amount to the Bank in such WP(C) No.30565/2008 -2- instalments, as the authorised representative of the 1st respondent. It is in that very same breath, that she says that her relationship with the 1st respondent is strained. Authorisation to be a representative is not built on strained relationships. That apart, there is no right or privity of contract between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Whatever be the outstandings, that is due, the petitioner is not entitled to agitate this issue. This writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) jg