IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 6602 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MRS.VIMALA KUMARI T.P. W/O.MR.K.VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED 55, C/O.GOPAKUMAR, "GOPIKA", NMRA 220, KRISHNAN NAIR ROAD, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU (P.O), TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, S.B.T. MAIN BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MR.SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.C.R.MOHAN KUMAR, GOKULAM, K.P 18/265, ESWARAN THAMPI NAGAR, KALLAYAM (P.O), TRIVANDRUM. 3. MRS.SHANTHABHAI AMMA, W/O.PAVANASHAM PILLAI BHARGAVA SARASSU, ARYANAD (P.O), TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1 SRI. JAYAKUMAR.K (SR.) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sou. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------------------------- W.P.C. No.6602 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is before this Court raising serious allegations against the steps being pursued by the bank under the SARFAESI Act for realisation of the amount stated as due under a loan transaction, with which the petitioner is stated as in no way connected with. 2. The case narrated by petitioner in the writ petition is that the title deeds of the petitioner, while she was working abroad, were stolen and on the strength of the said title deeds, deposited with the first respondent bank and on the strength of the documents executed by the respondents 2 and 3, substantial amounts were given to themas loan by the first respondent. It is contended that petitioner who was working abroad at the relevant time as revealed from the entries in Ext.P1 Passport was not aware of the situation and on coming to know about it later, she rushed to the bank. But by this time, notice u/s.13(2) was issued by the bank, followed by further consequential proceedings WPC.No.6602/10 2 including publication of notice in the leading dailies as evident from Ext.P2, which made the petitioner to rush to this Court by filing this writ petition to intercept the sale proceedings. It is contended that first respondent bank is acting hand in glove with the other respondents, who are the borrowers/guarantors. It is also contended by the petitioner, that a false PAN card has been created in the name of petitioner, which is made use of in the loan transaction. 3. The first respondent Bank has filed a statement, rebutting the averments and allegations raised by petitioner, specifically contending that properties were given as security by none other that the petitioner who executed the relevant documents. The documents contain exactly similar signature as that of the petitioner, as revealed from the PAN card. It is also pointed out by the first respondent that on searching the website of the Income Tax Authorities it was revealed that the petitioner was issued a PAN card and that the version of the petitioner that she had not taken any PAN card as contended in the writ petition is not correct at all. 4. In spite of ordering urgent notice to the respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner is still to complete the service of notice. This WPC.No.6602/10 3 being the position, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of he case. That apart, this Court also finds that the contentions raised from either side have to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence to be adduced, which has to be done before the appropriate forum and not by way of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that the Bank has only issued Ext.P2 notice u/s.13(2) and this being the position, the cause of action has not arisen. In other words, the petitioner is still at liberty to approach the DRT, as and when the cause of action arises. In the above circumstances, interference is declined and this Writ Petition is dismissed, making it clear that physical dispossession shall be caused to be made only in accordance with law, however not to be implemented within one month from today. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. Sou.