IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6224 of 2010(C)
1. V.C.MOHAMMED KOYA THANGAL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :15/03/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No.6224 of 2010-C
----------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the
respondent Bank invoking the machinery under the SARFAESI Act for
realization of the amount stated as due form the petitioner under a
housing loan.
2. The petitioner had availed a ‘housing loan’ of Rs.3.75
lakhs from the first respondent Bank creating security interest over
the property in question. The petitioner failed to pay the timely
instalments; under which circumstances, the Bank declared the
account as NPA and proceeded with further steps for taking
possession as well as causing the property to be sold under the
relevant provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the issue had already
been taken up before this Court, leading to Ext.P5 judgment passed
by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.64 of 2009.
Eventhough, some time was granted to satisfy the outstanding
W.P(C) No.6224 of 2010-C 2
liability, because of some unforeseen circumstances, the petitioner
could not honour his commitment and he filed Ext.P6
representation before the Bank for some more time to clear the
liability. It is stated that the Bank has issued Ext.P7 communication
directing the petitioner to satisfy the balance amount within 15
days, without showing the actual amount due; whereupon the
petitioner satisfied a sum of Rs.1 lakh, as borne by Ext.P8 receipt
and filed Ext.P9 representation to close the loan account and return
the sale deeds. The petitioner is now before this Court alleging
callous inaction on the part of the Bank in returning the title deeds
after recording satisfaction.
4. Sri.P.Gopinatha Menon, the learned counsel appearing
for the Bank submits on instructions, that the sequence of events
narrated in the Writ Petition is not in order and that the petitioner
was a chronic defaulter right from the beginning. Even though the
Bank has extended much leniency, providing opportunity to the
petitioner to clear the outstanding liability, it was not properly
utilized by the petitioner, who only wanted to protract things
somehow or the other. The learned counsel also projects the fact
that the matter has become final by virtue of Ext.P5 judgment
W.P(C) No.6224 of 2010-C 3
passed by this Court. It is also stated that, because of the default
on the part of the petitioner, the property was sold on 20.4.2009
and the sale was confirmed, as borne by Ext.P7. The petitioner was
given an opportunity by this Court to save his property, on condition
that he satisfied the entire outstanding liability by way of ‘six’ equal
monthly instalments beginning from 31.1.2009, making it clear that
if any default was committed, the proceedings pursued by the Bank
could be continued and no further time would be granted under any
circumstances. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the
benefit given by the Division Bench of this Court was not properly
availed by the petitioner satisfying the timely instalments. It was in
the said circumstances, the property was sold on 20.4.2009 and the
registration was also effected on 23.12.2009.
5. Obviously, the sale is not under challenge and the
successful bidder of the property is not made a party in the Writ
Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not aware of the said proceedings. The explanation
offered to the petitioner does not appear to be palatable to this
Court. The learned counsel for the Bank also brought it to the
notice of this Court that, despite the issuance of Ext.P7
W.P(C) No.6224 of 2010-C 4
communication in response to Ext.P6 representation, providing
further time to the petitioner to clear the outstanding amount, the
same was not satisfied by the petitioner, but for effecting a part
payment vide Ext.P8, followed by Ext.P9 representation. The
attempt is only to protract things and that no more leniency is liable
to be extended to the petitioner in any manner, since the sale is
complete and the property has also been registered in the name of
the successful bidder. The remedy of the petitioner in any, is
provided under the statute itself. No interference is warranted. The
Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly; however, without
prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail the remedy under the
statute.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge
ab
W.P(C) No.6224 of 2010-C 5