IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 30363 of 2008(M) ---------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.THANKAMMA, SISIRAM, VELLALIMBU VEEDU, PULLUVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER). 2. SENIOR MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., BR. NEYYATTINKARA, SWEDESHABHIMANI COMPLEX, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JYOTHIKUMAR V., JYOTHI BHAVAN, THADATHIKULAM,KANJIRMKULAM P.O. 4. J.S. PADMA BAI,JYOTHI BHAVAN, THADATHIKULAM,KANJIRMKULAM P.O. R1 and R2 BY ADV. MR. GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) R3 AND R4 BY ADV. MR. PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 30363 of 2008 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 7th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court, with some what a strange relief prayed for on behalf of her son, who stood as a guarantor in connection with the loan transaction availed by the 3rd respondent from the first respondent Bank. The prayers of the petitioner are; that the property belonging to the petitioner’s son, over which the security interest was created, shall not be proceeded against and that the Bank might be directed to proceed against the 3rd respondent/principal debtor and 4th respondent – co-obligant. 2. Prima facie it appears that, the idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the scope of challenge, is wrong and misconceived, primarily for the reason that, Sub Section 11 of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act clearly stipulates that, without prejudice to the rights conferred on the secured creditor, the secured creditor shall be entitled to proceed against the guarantors or sell the pledged assets without first taking any of the measures specified in clauses (a) to (d) of Sub section (4) in relation to the secured assets under this Act. 3. This being the position, the prayer of the petitioner to direct the Bank to proceed against the principal borrower and his assets before proceeding against the guarantors is not correct or sustainable. Yet WP (C) No. 30363 of 2008a : 2 : another aspect to be noted is that, the petitioner is admittedly not a guarantor to the loan transaction. So also, it is not the petitioner's property, over which the security interest has been created while availing the loan. The petitioner also does not have a case that the proceedings taken by the Bank against the property belonging to her son have been sought to be challenged on the basis of 'any power of attorney' executed by the son. In other words, the petitioner is a stranger to the transaction in question and hence the petitioner does not have any 'locus standi' to file the present Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd