IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19819 of 2008(H)
1. BINNY VARGHESE, MADHURAMCHERIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION,
3. STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE OFFICE,
4. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STRESSED ASSET
5. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, BROAD WAY
6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
7. SMT.SUNITHA.E.P, PLOT NO.16, PANCHAVADY
8. REGHU.K.J, PLOT NO.16, PANCHAVADY
9. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 5TH FLOOR,
For Petitioner :SRU.C.S.ULLAS
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :01/07/2008
O R D E R
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
==================================
W.P.(C)No.19819 of 2008
==================================
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008.
JUDGMENT
After arguing the matter for quite sometime,
learned counsel for the petitioner confines his
submission to a request that the petitioner may be
permitted to exclude SARFAESI Act proceedings in
view of the pendency of proceedings before the
Debts Recovery Tribunal and different courts.
Learned counsel for the bank however states that
the proceedings before the DRT is the only
proceeding to which the bank is a legitimate party
and that the different suits have really no bearing
on the rights of the bank in relation to the loan
transaction.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner quite in extenso, the controversies are
essentially in the realm of creation of power of
WPC19819/2008
-:2:-
attorneys, the scope of power of attorney
documents, the actions of the power holder in
entering into transactions and also parting
consideration. The materials also appear to
disclose that the petitioner has also received
amounts under demand drafts. Under such
circumstances, I do not deem it appropriate to tie
down the bank to any proceedings in the civil
court, particularly when, the proceedings initiated
under the SARFAESI Act stand outside the
jurisdiction and reach of the civil court and the
proceedings cannot be interfered with by the civil
court. But it has also to be ensured that any
legitimate right of the petitioner qua the power
holder and any party other than the bank could also
be worked out reasonably.
3. In the aforesaid circumstances, while I
find no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in
the impugned proceedings, this writ petition is
WPC19819/2008
-:3:-
ordered directing that if the petitioner remits the
entire amounts due to the bank as covered by the
SARFAESI Act notice within an outer limit of two
weeks from now, such payments shall be provisional
and subject to the decision of the proceedings
pending before the DRT. It is also clarified that
the other proceedings, if any, pending before the
different courts will not have any impact between
the bank and the petitioner which essentially have
to be worked out before the DRT. If payment, as
aforesaid, is not remitted within the specified
period, the respondents can proceed with the
impugned action, in accordance with law.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
Judge.
sl/1.7.08