Balakrishna Menon vs The Branch Manager on 6 April, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 11275 of 2009(D)


1. BALAKRISHNA MENON, AGED 65,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,

3. K.ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O.KUMARAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOMY GEORGE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :06/04/2009

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                  -------------------------------------------
                  W.P(C).No.11275 OF 2009
                  -------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009


                              JUDGMENT

1.The petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of the third

respondent. He now says that the said sale was only a

transaction of loan and was not intended to take effect as a

sale. On the strength of agreement for re-conveyance, the

petitioner had sued the third respondent in the civil court for

specific performance of the agreement. The third respondent

also filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner. The

third respondent had mortgaged the property and created a

security interest in favour of the first respondent and obtained

a loan. On default, the bank has taken recourse to

securitisation proceedings. The petitioner wants this Court to

compel the bank to receive the amounts due under the loan

from him and also to disclose to him the total amounts due

under the account.

WPC.11275/09

Page numbers

2.Learned counsel for the bank states that the pleadings to the

writ petition discloses that there is a first appeal pending

before this Court between the petitioner and the third

respondent.

3.The petitioner does not have a legal right to request this Court

to compel respondents 1 and 2 to receive amounts from him as

against the amounts due from the third respondent. The

contract between the third respondent and the first

respondent cannot be interfered with in that manner. The

petitioner’s request that the first respondent could disclose the

amounts due from the third respondent, is again a matter of

privacy within the realm of banking laws, subject of course to

any supervening entitlement of the petitioner to access such

information. I do not find it necessary for this Court to issue

any order as sought for. The writ petition fails. The same is

accordingly dismissed preserving all contentions of the

petitioner and the third respondent as between them.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

kkb.7/4.