IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21365 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VIJAYAMMA L., VASUDEVA BHAVANAM, PATHIYOOR WEST, KEERIKKAD, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SIVARAJ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER, (AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT) FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE, ALUVA. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, KAYAMKULAM. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) BY ADV. SRI.P.R.MILTON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 21365 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 19th August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the contention that the petitioner is still to be given a proper statement of accounts in respect of the loan transaction, despite the many a request made in this regard; simultaneously stating that the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the actual liability and wants to have the 'title deeds' returned at the earliest. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank on instruction, submits that the petitioner is the borrower, while the husband and the son of the petitioner are the guarantors. It is also stated that two different loans were availed by the petitioner, a 'personal loan' and another a 'Housing loan' and that much arrears are there under both the loan accounts. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that the tenure of the W.P.(C) No. 21365 OF 2010 2 personal loan is already over. The learned Counsel also submits that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the contention raised, in so far as Ext.P1 notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued as early as on 22.10.2008 and no objection was raised by the petitioner and the alleged dispute with regard to the statement of accounts has been raised for the first time by issuing a lawyer's notice on 15.06.2010. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had infact preferred an objection in response to Ext.P1, as contended in Ground 'C' of the Writ Petition, though a copy of the same is not seen produced along with the Writ Petition. 4. However, considering the limited nature of the relief now prayed for, there will be a direction to the respondent Bank to furnish a proper statement of accounts to the petitioner showing the various payments effected and the balance outstanding, so as to enable the petitioner to clear the liability. The said statement of accounts shall be furnished within one W.P.(C) No. 21365 OF 2010 3 week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On satisfaction of the liability as above, the 'title deeds' of the petitioner shall be returned without any further delay. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk