IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10394 of 2010(Y)
1. T.S.SWAMINATHAN, AGED 36,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHIEF MANAGER(AUTHORISED OFFICER),
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.I.DINESH MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :16/06/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 10394 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
This is the 3rd or 4th round of litigation being
pursued by the petitioner, challenging the steps taken by the
Bank, for realisation of the dues from the petitioner under
different loan transactions.
2. The prayer in the writ petition is mainly to direct
the Bank to consider Ext.P7 representation, requesting to sell
three items of properties out of 4 items given as security and to
realise the amount by selling the said properties directly to the
buyer identified by the petitioner and to adjust the amounts so
received against the loan account of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank
submits, with reference to the contents of the statement filed,
that the writ petition itself is not maintainable under any
circumstance, as the attempt of the petitioner is only to protract
the matter, without any genuine desire to have the liability
W.P.(C) No.10394 of 2010
2
settled and cleared The learned counsel for the Bank describes
the sequence of events, submitting that there were altogether
three loans, and as on 23.9.2009, the date of issuance of notice
under Section 13(2) of the SURFAESI Act, total liability of the
petitioner was nearly Rs.1.26 crores plus interest and costs.
When the Bank proceeded with steps, the petitioner approached
this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.28752/2009, which was dismissed
as pre-mature, holding that the petitioner approached this Court
even before the expiry of 60 days stipulated in Section 13(2)
notice. However, this Court directed the Bank to consider the
request of the petitioner for ‘private sale’ of the property, with
intent to generate more funds.
4. Pursuant to the above verdict, the Bank
considered the matter and permitted the petitioner to have sale
of ‘two’ items of properties. When the proceedings were being
pursued as above, petitioner filed another writ petition (W.P.(C)
No.1560/2010), stating that the property involved therein was
already attached by the Sub Court, Thrissur, in a Civil Suit, at
W.P.(C) No.10394 of 2010
3
the instance of somebody else and that steps were being
pursued to have the attachment lifted and thus praying for
necessary directions to be issued to the Bank to keep further
proceedings pending, till the attachment was lifted. After
considering the rival submissions, Ext.P6 judgment was passed,
whereby the petitioner was given time till 28.2.2010 to take
steps to have the attachment lifted.
5. However, when the above writ petition was
pending before this Court, learned counsel for the respondent-
Bank submits that the petitioner sold one of the items of
properties, without permission of the Bank and the amount was
not remitted to the Bank against the loan account, which was
very much contrary to the terms of the sanction letter whereby
the petitioner was permitted to have ‘private sale’. It is
suppressing this vital aspect as to the sale, that the petitioner
has filed Ext.P7 representation before the Bank, seeking for
permission to sell ‘three items’ of properties by ‘private sale’ and
has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition,
W.P.(C) No.10394 of 2010
4
wherein also, the factum of sale conducted by the petitioner is
suppressed, submits the learned counsel.
6. It is incidentally brought to the notice of this
Court that the petitioner had approached this Court by filing
another writ petition, W.P.(C) No.14545/2010, seeking for a
direction to be issued to the Bank to consider the request made
by the petitioner to supply a proper statement of accounts as to
the liability, the amounts already remitted by the petitioner and
the balance amount. When the said matter came up for
consideration before this Court, the submission made from the
part of the Bank, that the representation was considered and it
was disposed of giving proper reply to the petitioner, was
recorded and the writ petition was closed. This being the
position, it is contended that absolutely no interference is
warranted in this writ petition.
Taking note of the facts and figures as above, this
Court finds that the course being pursued by the petitioner, can’t
W.P.(C) No.10394 of 2010
5
but be deprecated, in so far as he has not chosen to liquidate
the liability, despite the different opportunities given to have
breathing time and to wipe off the entire liability, in an
appropriate manner. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and
none of the grounds raised in support of the same appears to be
tenable. Interference is declined and the writ petition is
dismissed accordingly.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE.
nj.