IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 29322 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIMALA DEVI, AGED 70 YEARS, WIFE OF SIVADASAN, SIVADAS BHAVAN, MUNDAKKAL, QUILON. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE,REGION IV, TRIVANDRUM. 2. K.LAIJU, SARAVANA BHAVAN, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM. ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN FOR R2 SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R2 SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD FOR R2 SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) FOR R2 SRI.MATHEW SUNNY FOR R2 STANDING COUNSEL SRI.SATHISH NINAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 29322/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 28972/2008 DATED 28.10.2008. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.01.2009. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 30.07.2009 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 29322 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court again, challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank causing the property concerned to be sold in public auction for realisation of the amount stated as due under a loan transaction. 2. Case of the petitioner is that her son had availed a loan, creating security interest over the property in question; but the repayments could not be effected on time, when the Bank declared the account as 'NPA' and proceeded with further steps under the SARFAESI Act. This was sought to be challenged by filing WP(C) 28972/2008, which led to Ext.P1 judgment. Obviously, the said case was filed by the mother of the borrower, stating that her son was working in the 'Gulf' and that same indulgence might be shown by the Court. Considering the absence of merit, interference was declined and the Writ Petition was dismissed as early as on 28.10.2008. 3. It appears that the Bank proceeded with further steps, leading to issuance of Ext.P3 sale notice dated 30.07.2009. In the meanwhile, the son of the petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation dated 02.01.2009 seeking for the benefit of 'OTS'. The mother of the petitioner, who filed a similar 2 WP(C) No. 29322/2009 Writ Petition culminating Ext.P1 judgment has come up again before this Court raising the same or rather similar contentions as put forth earlier. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the sale is already over and the property has been bid in auction by the 2nd respondent, though the confirmation of the sale stands stayed by this Court as per interim order dated 16.10.2009. The prayer of the petitioner is to permit her son/the borrower to clear the balance amount and to direct the first respondent to re-convey the property to the petitioner; which course is stated as not acceptable either to the Bank or to the 2nd respondent who is the successful bidder of the property concerned. This Court finds that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc