IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 14479 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.K.MUHAMMEDALI, S/O.HAMEED, MUBARAK MANZIL, NEAR PRIYA TALKIES, MATTANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, KSHB COMPLEX, VIKAS NAGAR, CHAKKORATHJKULAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 006. 2. K.NAZAR, S/O.MAMU, AGED 47 YEARS, REP.BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, KINAKKOOL HOUSE, PO, IRIKKUR, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI FOR R1 SRI.C.K.SREEJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 14479/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY SRI.K. SAJEEVAN THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT. EXT.P3 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 1-4-2008. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.9-4-2008. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN, J ============== W.P.(C).No. 14479 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 8th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner submitted his bid for purchase of 10 acres of land in Re-Sy.No.28/1A2 of Vayathur Village, Kannur District. The purchase was in proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 initiated by the 1st respondent for realisation of loan amounts due from the 2nd respondent. However, the petitioner did not complete the contract by paying the balance sale consideration. Therefore, on allegations of breach of contract, 1st respondent has ordered forfeiture of the EMD paid by the petitioner. Petitioner's contention is that the forfeiture is premature because without a finding that the 1st respondent suffered loss in a resale, the EMD cannot be forfeited. I am of opinion that by the order of forfeiture, the 1st respondent has only stated that the EMD will not be refunded to the petitioner. But, if ultimately the 1st respondent-bank realises a higher price than what the petitioner has offered, certainly the petitioner can seek appropriate reliefs in the matter. With the above observation this writ petition is closed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-