IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12251 of 2010(F)
1. N.A.SONNI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
... Respondent
2. GREEN AGRO TRADE LINKS (P) LTD.,
3. SUNNY MATHEW,
4. ELIZABETH SUNNY,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD
For Respondent :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :31/05/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No.12251 of 2010-F
----------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the steps
taken by the respondent Bank in proceeding against the property of
the petitioner, which was purchased by him from one Mr.Abdulla
(who is not a party to this Writ Petition), who in turn had purchased
the same from the fourth respondent.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a ‘bonafide
purchaser’, as there was a clear encumbrance-free certificate, as
borne by Ext.P3. But now the petitioner has been served with Ext.P4
notice issued by the Bank under the relevant provisions of the
SARFAESI Act, stating that the property had actually been the
subject matter of a loan transaction availed by the second
respondent Company, in which, the third and fourth respondents
were the Directors, who had also given a `personal guarantee’ in
respect of the property. Subsequently, the borrower turned to be a
defaulter; under such circumstances, the Bank proceeded with steps
under the SARFAESI Act. Even though, the matter was taken up in
W.P(C) No.12251 of 2010-F 2
‘Adalath’, as borne by Ext.P5, nothing positively transpired and it is
being further proceeded with; which hence is sought to be
intercepted in this Writ Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
despite explaining the sequence of events, the Bank has not paid
any heed to the same and absolutely no action is being taken
against the respondents 2 to 4, though the said respondents are
having sufficient means and property to clear their liability. It is
also contended that the fourth respondent had approached an `MP’
from Kerala by filing a petition and on forwarding the same to the
first respondent Bank, as borne by Ext.P6 letter, no action is being
taken by the first respondent Bank against the concerned
respondents or their properties.
4. The learned counsel for the Bank submits, with reference
to the contents of the statement filed before this Court, that the
action being pursued by the Bank is strictly in conformity with the
relevant provisions of law and that security interest was created over
the property on 9.3.2004, whereas the petitioner chose to purchase
the property only on 29.12.2008, that too without verifying the
original title deed, which of course was with the first respondent
W.P(C) No.12251 of 2010-F 3
Bank.
5. Going through the pleadings and materials on record, as
referred to above, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot
successfully sustain the challenge with respect to the security
interest. However, this Court finds that the Bank has also given
particulars of various items of properties belonging to the third and
fourth respondents and others concerned with regard to the loan
transaction, as given in the opening para of the statement. The
learned counsel for the Bank submits that, along with the steps
against the property now stated as purchased by the petitioner, the
other items of properties are also being proceeded against and that
absolutely no arbitrariness or discrimination is there, in the matter
of realisation of the loan amount.
6. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it as
a fit case to interfere with the impugned steps or proceedings.
Accordingly, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is
dismissed. Rights and liberties of the petitioner, against the others
concerned, are left open.
Sd/-
ab P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE