IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29493 of 2009(F)
1. JOSEPH AUGUSTINE, S/O.E.J.AUGUSTINE,
... Petitioner
2. VINCENT.T.K, S/O.T.P.KURIAPPAN,
Vs
1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK,
... Respondent
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
3. THE MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :22/10/2009
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 29493 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
1. Petitioners who are partners of a firm which
availed various loans from the 3rd respondent Bank for
business purpose, is challenging the proceedings initiated
under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(SARFAESI Act). The loans in question were secured by
mortgage of six items of immovable properties. According
to the petitioners the respondents have already taken
possession of the properties after issuing notice as
contemplated under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. It
is now apprehended that the properties taken over
possession will be sold in pursuance of the proceedings
initiated. According to the petitioners they are ready and
willing to pay off the liability by arranging private sale of
W.P.(C)No. 29493 of 2009
-2-
some of the items of properties mentioned in Ext.P2 notice
issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act.
2. It is mentioned that the 1st petitioner had filed an
earlier writ petition as W.P.(C) No.26028/2009. In the said
writ petition it was specifically contended that item No.6
mentioned in the schedule of Ext.P2 notice is the residential
house of the 1st petitioner and inpsite of 1st petitioner
approaching the Bank with an offer to pay reasonable
market price for the said item of property, the Bank was not
prepared to accept such an offer .
3. Standing counsel appearing for the respondents
had produced a copy of the judgment in W.P.(C)
No.26028/2009 for my perusal. It is noticed that on
22nd September, 2009 the above said writ petition was
disposed of directing the respondent Bank to consider offer
of the 1st petitioner herein and to take a decision regarding
feasibility of entering into a private sale of the said item of
the property, with the 1st petitioner or with any of his
nominees. This court had shown indulgence in further
W.P.(C)No. 29493 of 2009
-3-
directing the Bank to abstain from sale of that particular
item of property, till such decision is taken. It is submitted
by the standing counsel that pursuant to such direction the
1st petitioner has not so far made any concrete offer with
respect to purchase of that particular item of property.
4. It is noticed that the 1st petitioner herein had filed
the earlier writ petition almost with identical prayers. In
that writ petition he had restrained his claims, with respect
to the property described as item No.6. Now the
1st petitioner along with another partner had filed this writ
petition seeking the very same relief with respect to other
items of property also. It is noticed that inspite of
indulgence shown in the earlier writ petition the petitioners
have not made any concrete offer for purchase of property
described as item No.6 in the schedule. Therefore the
repeated writ petition can only be considered as an attempt
to protract the proceedings in one way or other. It is a
shear abuse of the process of this court and the petitioners
does not deserve any indulgence in this matter.
W.P.(C)No. 29493 of 2009
-4-
5. Accordingly I find no ground to interfere and the
writ petition is dismissed.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
shg/