IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25198 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. SARASWATHY, WIFE OF VIJAYAMOHANAN, AGED 51 YEARS, TC 12/208, GREEN LANE, PLAMOODU, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VIJAYAMOHANAN, SON OF PARAMESWARA PANICKER, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT THE SAME ADDRESS. BY ADV. SRI.V.SURESH G. SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 2. THE AUTHORISED RECOVERY OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. B.S. MANJU, WIFE OF RAJESH, E-51, SUBAGH, SASTRI NAGAR, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. A.S.P. KURUP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08 /2008 , THE COURT ON 20/08/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.25198 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners challenge proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 and 2 under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Petitioners' contention is that during an interregnum period, when the title to the security interest was temporarily transfered to the 3rd respondent as a fiscal arrangement, which has been subsequently retransferred to the petitioners, the 3rd respondent mortgaged the property to the 1st respondent Bank, without the knowledge of the petitioner. According to the petitioners, the intention was never to transfer the title or possession to the 3rd respondent and therefore the property is not liable for being proceeded under the Act. 2. This is disputed by the Counsel for the bank who would submit that the property was mortgaged by the borrower, who was the owner of the property as on the date of execution of the mortgage. That being so, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioners cannot now challenge the proceedings under the Act. W.P(C)No.25198 of 2008 - 2 - 3. After hearing both sides, I am not satisfied that the petitioners can validly challenge securitisation proceedings as such. But in view of the circumstances narrated in the writ petition, I feel that the petitioner should be allowed the redeem property on payment of the amounts due. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs within two weeks. The balance amount shall be paid in four equal monthly instalments starting from 1.10.2008. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioners pay the amount as directed above, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of either Rs.25 lakhs or any of the subsequent instalments, it would be open to the respondents 1 and 2 to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. I also make it clear that such payment by the petitioner would be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to recover the amounts so paid from the 3rd respondent. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs