IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17694 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MARIA THOMAS, AGED 52, W/O. GEORGE, C.C.20/159. DEEPAM JUNCTION, KACHERIPADY, PALLURUTHY. BY ADV. MR. K.S.MADHUSOODANAN MR. T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI MR. THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY MR. M.M.VINOD KUMAR MS. K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNION BANK OF INDIA, NARIMAN POINT, B.B.RECLAMATION, MUMBAI-400021. 2. CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, COCHIN BRANCH, COCHIN. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KOCHI MAIN BRANCH, VI/345,BAZAR ROAD, P.B.NO.185M MATTANCHERY. BY ADV. MR. A.S.P. DILEEP, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 17694 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 29th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the proceedings taken by the respondent Bank invoking the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI Act. 2. The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondent Bank in the year 1999 in connection with setting up and development of an industrial unit. Because of some unforeseen downfalls, the petitioner could not succeed in the business and turned to be a defaulter, which made the respondent Bank to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam by filing necessary proceedings, and it was allegedly decreed for a total sum of Rs.31,52,840/- with interest and cost. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on instructions, submits that, as on date, a total sum of Rs. 45,64,850/- is due. Despite the steps taken, the Bank has not succeeded so far in taking over the physical possession of the building, though the symbolic possession was taken over. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, two different extents of property; 6.9 cents with single storied building and 5.9 cents with another building , have been offered as security creating WP (C) No. 17694 of 2009 : 2 : equitable mortgage over the same. It is pointed out that, the sale of one item itself may procure sufficient funds so as to wipe off the entire liability. 5. After considering the facts and figures, this Court does not find any tenable ground to interfere with the proceedings being taken by Bank causing the secured asset to be sold in auction, now scheduled to be held on 9.7.2009. However, it is made clear that the sale shall be caused only in respect of such extent of property as required to satisfy the actual liability. Since there are two separate items of property, only after conducting the sale of one item, the Bank shall proceed with the sale of the other item as well, if the former does not fetch sufficient amount to meet the liability. 5. Accordingly, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed, subject to the observations made above. However, this will not stand in the way of the petitioner from approaching the Bank for any concession, in tune with the terms and conditions to be specified and agreed by the Bank. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd