IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10394 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.S.SWAMINATHAN, AGED 36, S/O.LATE SUBRAMANIAN,THERAYANKODE HOUSE, EZHAKKAD PO,MUNDUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE CHIEF MANAGER(AUTHORISED OFFICER), SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM- 682031. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA (SC FOR RESPONDENT BANK) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 10394 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T This is the 3rd or 4th round of litigation being pursued by the petitioner, challenging the steps taken by the Bank, for realisation of the dues from the petitioner under different loan transactions. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is mainly to direct the Bank to consider Ext.P7 representation, requesting to sell three items of properties out of 4 items given as security and to realise the amount by selling the said properties directly to the buyer identified by the petitioner and to adjust the amounts so received against the loan account of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits, with reference to the contents of the statement filed, that the writ petition itself is not maintainable under any circumstance, as the attempt of the petitioner is only to protract the matter, without any genuine desire to have the liability W.P.(C) No.10394 of 2010 2 settled and cleared The learned counsel for the Bank describes the sequence of events, submitting that there were altogether three loans, and as on 23.9.2009, the date of issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SURFAESI Act, total liability of the petitioner was nearly Rs.1.26 crores plus interest and costs. When the Bank proceeded with steps, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.28752/2009, which was dismissed as pre-mature, holding that the petitioner approached this Court even before the expiry of 60 days stipulated in Section 13(2) notice. However, this Court directed the Bank to consider the request of the petitioner for 'private sale' of the property, with intent to generate more funds. 4. Pursuant to the above verdict, the Bank considered the matter and permitted the petitioner to have sale of 'two' items of properties. When the proceedings were being pursued as above, petitioner filed another writ petition (W.P.(C) No.1560/2010), stating that the property involved therein was already attached by the Sub Court, Thrissur, in a Civil Suit, at W.P.(C) No.10394 of 2010 3 the instance of somebody else and that steps were being pursued to have the attachment lifted and thus praying for necessary directions to be issued to the Bank to keep further proceedings pending, till the attachment was lifted. After considering the rival submissions, Ext.P6 judgment was passed, whereby the petitioner was given time till 28.2.2010 to take steps to have the attachment lifted. 5. However, when the above writ petition was pending before this Court, learned counsel for the respondent- Bank submits that the petitioner sold one of the items of properties, without permission of the Bank and the amount was not remitted to the Bank against the loan account, which was very much contrary to the terms of the sanction letter whereby the petitioner was permitted to have 'private sale'. It is suppressing this vital aspect as to the sale, that the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 representation before the Bank, seeking for permission to sell 'three items' of properties by 'private sale' and has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, W.P.(C) No.10394 of 2010 4 wherein also, the factum of sale conducted by the petitioner is suppressed, submits the learned counsel. 6. It is incidentally brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had approached this Court by filing another writ petition, W.P.(C) No.14545/2010, seeking for a direction to be issued to the Bank to consider the request made by the petitioner to supply a proper statement of accounts as to the liability, the amounts already remitted by the petitioner and the balance amount. When the said matter came up for consideration before this Court, the submission made from the part of the Bank, that the representation was considered and it was disposed of giving proper reply to the petitioner, was recorded and the writ petition was closed. This being the position, it is contended that absolutely no interference is warranted in this writ petition. Taking note of the facts and figures as above, this Court finds that the course being pursued by the petitioner, can't W.P.(C) No.10394 of 2010 5 but be deprecated, in so far as he has not chosen to liquidate the liability, despite the different opportunities given to have breathing time and to wipe off the entire liability, in an appropriate manner. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and none of the grounds raised in support of the same appears to be tenable. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE. nj.