IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14022 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MANIYAN, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, AGED 61 YEARS, MULLASSERI VEEDU, T.C. 241/1458, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VAZHUTHACAUD.R.NARENDRAN NAIR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, VIJAYA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, IST FLOOR, JOSE ANNEX, JOSE JUNCTION, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI -16. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, VIJAYA BANK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, M.G. ROAD, BRANCH. 3. MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -33. BY ADV. SRI.K. ANAND, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.14022 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th May,2009 J U D G M E N T First respondent, authorized officer of the Vijaya Bank invited offers in relation to five items of immovable properties which were taken possession of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. It seems that the petitioner made an offer on behalf of his son-in-law and deposited Rs.1 lakh as part of the sale consideration. Later he resiled from the offer. The Bank authorities proceeded to forfeit the same. This has been challenged in the writ petition. 2. Obviously the dispute is one which could be resolved only by the Civil Court. What is involved is adjudication as to whether there is a contract between the petitioner and whether there is a breach and if so, whether the respondent is entitled to forfeit the same. Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are clearly unsuitable for the said purpose. The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Civil Court. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma 2 3