IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6224 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- V.C.MOHAMMED KOYA THANGAL, S/O.ATTAKOYA THANGAL, V.C.HOUSE, POST NADUVA, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, PARAPPANGADI BRANCH, PARAPPANGADI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, SOUTHERN TRADE TOWER, FRANCIS ROAD, KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.P.GOPINATHA MENON, SC, SBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.6224 of 2010-C ---------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the machinery under the SARFAESI Act for realization of the amount stated as due form the petitioner under a housing loan. 2. The petitioner had availed a 'housing loan' of Rs.3.75 lakhs from the first respondent Bank creating security interest over the property in question. The petitioner failed to pay the timely instalments; under which circumstances, the Bank declared the account as NPA and proceeded with further steps for taking possession as well as causing the property to be sold under the relevant provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the issue had already been taken up before this Court, leading to Ext.P5 judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.64 of 2009. Eventhough, some time was granted to satisfy the outstanding W.P(C) No.6224 of 2010-C 2 liability, because of some unforeseen circumstances, the petitioner could not honour his commitment and he filed Ext.P6 representation before the Bank for some more time to clear the liability. It is stated that the Bank has issued Ext.P7 communication directing the petitioner to satisfy the balance amount within 15 days, without showing the actual amount due; whereupon the petitioner satisfied a sum of Rs.1 lakh, as borne by Ext.P8 receipt and filed Ext.P9 representation to close the loan account and return the sale deeds. The petitioner is now before this Court alleging callous inaction on the part of the Bank in returning the title deeds after recording satisfaction. 4. Sri.P.Gopinatha Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits on instructions, that the sequence of events narrated in the Writ Petition is not in order and that the petitioner was a chronic defaulter right from the beginning. Even though the Bank has extended much leniency, providing opportunity to the petitioner to clear the outstanding liability, it was not properly utilized by the petitioner, who only wanted to protract things somehow or the other. The learned counsel also projects the fact that the matter has become final by virtue of Ext.P5 judgment W.P(C) No.6224 of 2010-C 3 passed by this Court. It is also stated that, because of the default on the part of the petitioner, the property was sold on 20.4.2009 and the sale was confirmed, as borne by Ext.P7. The petitioner was given an opportunity by this Court to save his property, on condition that he satisfied the entire outstanding liability by way of 'six' equal monthly instalments beginning from 31.1.2009, making it clear that if any default was committed, the proceedings pursued by the Bank could be continued and no further time would be granted under any circumstances. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the benefit given by the Division Bench of this Court was not properly availed by the petitioner satisfying the timely instalments. It was in the said circumstances, the property was sold on 20.4.2009 and the registration was also effected on 23.12.2009. 5. Obviously, the sale is not under challenge and the successful bidder of the property is not made a party in the Writ Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware of the said proceedings. The explanation offered to the petitioner does not appear to be palatable to this Court. The learned counsel for the Bank also brought it to the notice of this Court that, despite the issuance of Ext.P7 W.P(C) No.6224 of 2010-C 4 communication in response to Ext.P6 representation, providing further time to the petitioner to clear the outstanding amount, the same was not satisfied by the petitioner, but for effecting a part payment vide Ext.P8, followed by Ext.P9 representation. The attempt is only to protract things and that no more leniency is liable to be extended to the petitioner in any manner, since the sale is complete and the property has also been registered in the name of the successful bidder. The remedy of the petitioner in any, is provided under the statute itself. No interference is warranted. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly; however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail the remedy under the statute. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.6224 of 2010-C 5