IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11275 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BALAKRISHNA MENON, AGED 65, S/O.KRISHNA NAIR, MAMMORA BUILDING, 401, REIGGA ROAD, DEIRA, DUBAI, RESIDING AT 28/1413, `ANUGRAGHA', K.P.VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUNAKKARA BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUNAKKARA BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. K.ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O.KUMARAN, KZIHAKKEL HOUSE, VILLIAPPALLY P.O., BADAGARA-673 542. R1, R2 BY ADV.SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.11275 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of the third respondent. He now says that the said sale was only a transaction of loan and was not intended to take effect as a sale. On the strength of agreement for re-conveyance, the petitioner had sued the third respondent in the civil court for specific performance of the agreement. The third respondent also filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner. The third respondent had mortgaged the property and created a security interest in favour of the first respondent and obtained a loan. On default, the bank has taken recourse to securitisation proceedings. The petitioner wants this Court to compel the bank to receive the amounts due under the loan from him and also to disclose to him the total amounts due under the account. WPC.11275/09 Page numbers 2.Learned counsel for the bank states that the pleadings to the writ petition discloses that there is a first appeal pending before this Court between the petitioner and the third respondent. 3.The petitioner does not have a legal right to request this Court to compel respondents 1 and 2 to receive amounts from him as against the amounts due from the third respondent. The contract between the third respondent and the first respondent cannot be interfered with in that manner. The petitioner's request that the first respondent could disclose the amounts due from the third respondent, is again a matter of privacy within the realm of banking laws, subject of course to any supervening entitlement of the petitioner to access such information. I do not find it necessary for this Court to issue any order as sought for. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed preserving all contentions of the petitioner and the third respondent as between them. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.7/4.