P.I.Safiya Beevi vs Uco Bank on 19 September, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24634 of 2008(G)


1. P.I.SAFIYA BEEVI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UCO BANK, MATTANCHERRY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. AUTHORISED OFFICER,

3. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

                For Respondent  :SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :19/09/2008

 O R D E R
         Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
        ==================================
              W.P.(C)No.24634 of 2008
        ==================================
     Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008.

                     JUDGMENT

Petitioner availed certain facilities by way of

loan from the first respondent. On account of

default in repayment, the bank took action under

the SARFAESI Act and proceeded against the security

property and issued possession notice. The

property, which is the security property belongs to

the guarantors. They filed writ petition before

this Court against such action and lost it. They

carried a writ appeal, which was also unsuccessful.

Thereafter, this writ petition is filed by the

principal debtor on the premise that she has filed

a securitization application before the Debts

Recovery Tribunal on regular basis. The owners of

the security property, themselves, have lost the

writ petition and writ appeal. The mere plea of

the petitioner that she has a moral obligation; may

be a legal one, to protect the interest of the

WPC24634/08

-:2:-

guarantors, is insufficient to persuade the writ

court to come to the aid of the petitioner. That

would be virtually contradicting the judgments

dismissing the writ petition and writ appeal by the

guarantors.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any

ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings.

However, it is clarified that the last sentence of

the interim order dated 14-8-2008 recording the

statement of the petitioner that she may be able to

avert the sale and that she may do so in consonance

with the first respondent will continue to be

recorded without prejudice to the rights of

parties.

Writ petition is dismissed.

                     Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
sl.                                  Judge.