IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 26898 of 2009(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RAJESH EXPORTS LTD., BATAVIA CHAMBERS, KUMARA KRIPA RD, PARK EAST, BANGLORE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER BIJU ABRAHAM. BY ADV. MR.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. PUSHPANGADHAN, S/O.KUMARAN, KAIPPARA HOUSE, AVINISSERY, THRISSUR. 2. CITY UNION BANK, PALAKKAD BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. R1 BY ADV. SMT.N.U.DEEPA. R2 BY ADV. MR.K.THYAGARAJESWARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 26898/2009-F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.4789/07 OF S.R.O. CHERPU. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE S.I. OF POLICE, CHERPU. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PLAINT OF O.S.181/08 IN THE FILES OF SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PLAINT OF O.S. 257/2008 IN THE FILES OF SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF O.S.257/2008 IN THE FILES OF SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION REGARDING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SARFAESI ACT AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3465/1993 DATED 22/10/1993 OF THE CHERPU SRO. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 26/12/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE VALUER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. -------------------------------------------- WP(C).No. 26898 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner claims that they had purchased certain immovable property from the first respondent for valuable consideration. According to the petitioner, at the time of purchase the first respondent had made them to believe that there is only a liability of Rs.5 lakhs due to the 2nd respondent, and the first respondent had promised to pay off the liability out of the sale consideration. The above facts were recited in the sale deed executed as per Ext.P1. Petitioner alleges that, original of Ext.P1 document was snatched away from the custody of the petitioner by some unknown persons at the instance of the first respondent. It is further stated that civil suits filed between the petitioner and the 1st respondent with respect to the above dispute is pending adjudication. 2. The matter involved in this writ petition relates to challenge against proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial WPC.26898/2009 2 Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed in repayment of loan availed by first respondent, the 2nd respondent had proceeded against the above said property which is the secured asset with respect to the loan transaction. The writ petition is filed at a stage when the property was proclaimed for auction sale. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent contended that the petitioner is a total stranger as far as the loan transaction is concerned and he has no locus standi to challenge the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. It is further contended that the alleged purchase was made by the petitioner with full knowledge about the liability and therefore the petitioner could not raise any valid contention against the proceedings initiated by the Bank. 4. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay off the entire liability due to the 2nd respondent Bank, with a view to save the property from being sold in auction under the SARFAESI proceedings. WPC.26898/2009 3 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire liability due from the first respondent to the 2nd respondent bank. 6. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay off the entire liability due under the loan transaction to the 2nd respondent Bank, in 3 equal monthly instalments starting from 30.12.2009 and on or before the last day of the succeeding two months. On payment of the entire amounts the 2nd respondent shall treat the loan account as closed and shall release charge over the mortgaged property. 7. It is made clear that on the event of default committed in payment of any of the instalments as stipulated above, 2nd respondent will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to notices already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings either before this court or before any other forum. 8. It is made clear that payment of the amounts due under the loan account by the petitioner or any of the observations made in this judgment shall not be taken into WPC.26898/2009 4 consideration while deciding rights and liabilities between the parties which are in issue in the civil suits pending disposal. The 2nd respondent shall release the title deeds based on the final outcome of the civil suits on the question of title to the property involved. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Pmn/ WPC.26898/2009 5