IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 3361 of 2011(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- AARATHY K., D/O.S.KRISHNANKUTTY, SILVERNOOK, NEDUVAKKAD, KANNADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678701. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. CORPORATION OFFICE, HEAD OFFICE AT MANGALORE, MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD, PANDESWAR, MANGALORE -1, KARNATAKA STATE, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. CORPORATION BANK, 11/1447, MARKET ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678014, REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CORPORATION BANK, 11/1447, MARKET ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678014. ADV. SRI.C.S.SUNIL FOR R1 SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE, SC FOR CORPORATION BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.3361/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE IN FURTHERANCE TO EXT.P1. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF TENDER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 2.8.2010. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN THE SALE HELD ON 3.8.2010. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 25.9.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.3. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2010 PASSED IN WPC NO.26369/2010 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 3361 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner purchased a property which was mortgaged to the respondent Bank, which was sold in a proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Her grievance is that despite having deposited an amount of `8,60,625/-, the property sold in her favour has not been delivered to her and therefore the Bank should be called upon to refund the amount due. The fact that the property has been sold to the petitioner, that the petitioner has deposited the money as claimed by her and that the property could not be delivered to her are not disputed by the Bank. 2. However, the contention raised by the counsel for the Bank is that inspite of having obtained an order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Bank could not so far take possession of the property in order to deliver the same to the petitioner. WPC No. 3361/11 :2 : 3. Once the property has been purchased by the petitioner, which even according to the Bank, was on condition that the delivery should be effected to her, it was the responsibility of the Bank to have resumed possession and delivered the same to the petitioner. Otherwise, necessarily she is entitled to be refunded the amount deposited by her. 4. In that view, I direct that if the Bank is unable to deliver the property to the petitioner within 6 weeks from today, the petitioner shall be refunded the amount deposited by her. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp