IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13835 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- SIVADAS, AGED 47, S/O.PATTATHIPARAMBIL KUMARAN, KIZHAKUMPATTUKARA DESOM, PERINGAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, THRISSUR MAIN BRANCH, REP.BY ITS MANAGER, THRISSUR. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, THRISSUR MAIN BRANCH, THRISSUR. 3. BOBBY A.TITUS, S/O.M.A.TITUS, 37/2, "ANUGRAHA", NEAR L.F.CHURCH, KALOOR-682 077. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 13835/2009-Y PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO.5387/07 OF OLLUKKARA SRO DT.20/11/07 EXT.P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY R1 DT.21/10/08. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO PETITIONER DT. 28/02/08. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT. 20/02/08. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.29/03/08. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT. 07/08/08 EXT.P7 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.19/07/08 EXT.P8 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.21/01/08. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL / TRUE COPY / PA TO JUDGE. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 13835 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner approached this Court challenging the coercive steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act, stating that the petitioner was the actual owner of the property concerned, though he had effected a conveyance in the name of the third respondent, who secured a loan from the first respondent Bank on the basis of the said document, by depositing the title deed, creating equitable mortgage over the same. 2. The specific case of the respondent Bank was that the Writ Petition itself is neither maintainable in law, nor on facts, particularly since the petitioner does never have any 'locus standi' to challenge the impugned proceedings, being neither the borrower nor the owner of the land in question. 3. When the matter had come up for consideration before this Court earlier, extending maximum leniency, the coercive proceedings were intercepted on 19.05.2009, on condition that the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- within 10 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the condition imposed while granting the interim order could WPC NO. 13835/2009 2 not be complied with; despite the extension of time granted by this Court as per order dated 09.06.2009. 4. The factual position as above, particularly with regard to the conveyance of the property effected by the petitioner in favour of the third respondent and the loan availed by the third respondent/owner creating equitable mortgage over the property, is not in dispute. The only case put forth by the petitioner is that Ext.P1 document executed by him was only a 'sham document' and that, it cannot be acted upon. The nature of the contention taken by the petitioner does not call for interference and no premium can be given to the 'wrong-doer' under any circumstance. In the said circumstance, no interference is called for. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc