IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36659 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA, ANGAMALY BRANCH, REP.BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UCO BANK, ANGAMALY BRANCH, ANGAMALY. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UCO BANK, UCO BANK REGIONAL OFFICE, RAVIPURAM, COCHIN-15. 3. SAJEESH K.NAIR, 5E,CENTRAL COURT APARTMENTS, LISSIE HOSPITAL ROAD, COCHIN-18. R1, R2 BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE K.VARGHESE, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.36659 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Notice to the third respondent dispensed with, preserving his right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 2. Petitioner is the State Bank of India and first respondent is the UCO Bank. While the first respondent is a public sector undertaking, the petitioner is a statutory body. The second respondent is the authorised officer of the UCO Bank, carrying out proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. UCO Bank granted a facility to one K.A.Muraleedharan. He created mortgage of an item of property to provide collateral security for that loan. Thereafter, going by the materials on record, he sold the property to one Sajeesh Krishnan, S/o.Santhana Krishnan Nair, who is shown as Sajeesh K. Nair in this writ petition and arrayed as the third respondent herein. That person availed a housing WPC.36659/08 Page numbers loan from the petitioner and created a mortgage on the basis of the sale deed in his favour. Therefore, UCO Bank has a first charge and that whatever it is worth, the petitioner SBI has a second charge because what they have is a subsequent mortgage over the same item of property. 3. Sri.K.A.Muraleedharan, referred to above, is seen to have filed W.P(C).24369/08, challenging the action taken by the UCO Bank under the SARFAESI Act. That writ petition found its waterloo on 23.9.2008 after it was noticed that he had transferred the property to the aforesaid Sajeesh Krishnan Nair, whose details are recorded by this Court in that judgment. This Court also persuaded not to impose any order of costs against K.A.Muraleedharan. 4. The UCO Bank listed the property for sale. The petitioner SBI also has outstandings due from the third respondent. The petitioner and the first respondent, both deal with public funds, will be able to recover the dues. WPC.36659/08 Page numbers Taking the aforesaid into consideration, it is ordered that respondents 1 and 2 will attempt to hold the sale on 15.12.2008 as now listed and will not confirm it or accept any offer, unless it covers the entire amounts due to the petitioner and to the first respondent. This is because the amounts due to the first respondent would be only less than Rs.6 lakhs while the outstandings due to the petitioner is around Rs.16 lakhs. If the sale does not take place on that day as stated above, it would be adjourned so that the petitioner and the third respondent can work out remedy among themselves. If the sale takes place in terms of what is stated above, respondents 1 and 2 will ensure that after deducting the entire amounts due to it, the entire balance consideration which will cover the amounts due to the petitioner will be released to it on the strength of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.