IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5419 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ RAJESH EXPORTS PVT.LTD., BATAVALA CHAMBERS, KUMARAKRIPA RD PARK EAST BANGLORE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER BIJU ABRAHAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. PUSHPANGADHAN, S/O.KUMARAN, KAIPPARA HOUSE, AVINISSERY, THRISSUR. 2. CITY UNION BANK PALAKKAD BRANCH, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. ADV. SRI.K.THYAGARAJESWARAN FOR R2 SRI.SANTHOSH G.PRABHU FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.5419 of 2010-B. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a company incorporated having its office at Bangalore. According to the petitioner, they have purchased some immovable property through Ext.P1 assignment deed from the first respondent, with full knowledge that the property in question is mortgaged in favour of the 2nd respondent Bank and the outstanding liabilities is around ` 2 lakhs. It is the case of the petitioner that the original of Ext.P1 assignment deed was snatched away from the possession of the representative of the petitioner, by some unknown persons, allegedly on behalf of the first respondent. It is further stated that Ext.P1 deed was handed over to the 2nd respondent Bank. It is stated that the petitioner company had filed criminal complaint against the incidents and that they have also filed civil suit claiming to get the above said document returned. It is also WP(C).No.5419 of 2010-B. 2 contended that the first respondent had filed another suit declaring cancellation of Ext.P1 assignment deed on the premise that the transaction was made only on an ostensible basis, as security for the loan amount availed from the petitioner company. 2. Consequent to failure in payment of amounts due under the loan account availed by the first respondent, the 2nd respondent bank had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Challenging the steps initiated in this regard, the petitioner company had approached this Court on an earlier occasion. The said writ petition was filed at a stage when the property was proclaimed for auction sale. On the basis of submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the company is ready and willing to pay the entire liability due to the 2nd respondent Bank, indulgence was shown in permitting payment of the amounts due in three equal WP(C).No.5419 of 2010-B. 3 monthly instalments starting from 30.12.2009 onwards. It was further directed that on closing of the loan account, after effecting payment of the amounts as directed, the title deed of the property can be released subject to final outcome of the civil suit pending. It is reported that inspite of such indulgence shown, the petitioner company had failed to make payment of any amount. In the present writ petition the company is again challenging proclamation of sale published under Ext.P8. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is mentioned that the property in question has already been sold in auction for an amount of Rs.140 lakhs. It is further contended that the petitioner is a total stranger as far as loan transaction is concerned and they have no locus standi in challenging the steps initiated under the SARFAESI Act. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner was already granted relief in the subject matter through an WP(C).No.5419 of 2010-B. 4 earlier writ petition and also considering the fact that the sale has already taken place, I am not inclined to interfere this writ petition any further. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue the civil suit as well as other proceedings initiated. It is also left open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps to challenge the sale, if permissible under law through appropriate statutory steps. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed reserving the rights if any available to the petitioner under law, as mentioned above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-