L.Rajeevan Pillai vs State Bank Of Travancore on 7 April, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 10773 of 2008(G)


1. L.RAJEEVAN PILLAI, AGED 51 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. CHIEF MANAGER,STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,

3. AUTHORISED OFFICER,

4. ALLIAMMA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :07/04/2008

 O R D E R
                           ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                          ===============
                       W.P.(C) NO. 10773 OF 2008 G
                     ====================

                   Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008

                               J U D G M E N T

In this writ petition, the challenge is against Ext.P2, a sale notice

published by the respondent Bank for sale of the properties mortgaged by

the 4th respondent, a defaulter. Petitioner submits that he is a creditor of

the 4th respondent and complains that the reserve price fixed by the Bank

is low. Yet another complaint is that if the property in question is sold in

smaller plots, that will fetch sufficient funds for liquidating the liability of

the Bank.

2. On the other hand, the submission made on behalf of the

respondent Bank is that the writ petition itself is collusive. It is stated that

Ext.P1 is a suit filed by the petitioner against the 4th respondent where it is

alleged that the 4th respondent has borrowed money from the petitioner

for business purposes.

3. Irrespective of the contentions, in my view the complaint now

urged before me cannot be entertained, coming from a stranger like the

petitioner. If the reserve price fixed is low and if by selling of smaller

portion of land, the debt of the bank can be realised, it is for the owner of

WPC 10773/08
:2 :

the property to raise these complaints. The 4th respondent has not chosen

to raise these complaints and if that be so, the petitioner who is a stranger

cannot be permitted to raise these contentions.

4. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

However, I clarify that this judgment will not stand in the way of the

petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies that are available to him.

ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE.

Rp