IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 26755 of 2007(I)
1. NIZAMUDEEN H,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE,
4. MR.JOBY MATHEW, S/O KURIAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.BOBBY JOHN
For Respondent :SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :18/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 26755 OF 2007 I
=====================
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner submits that on the strength of Ext.P1 Power of
Attorney, he had availed two loans from the respondent Bank for
Rs.10 lakh each. It is stated that the 4th respondent and some
other officers of the Bank had fraudulently obtained signed
papers from him and that utilizing those signed papers, had
availed of 19 other loans, on which property covered by Ext.P1
has been given in security. Petitioner submits that he was totally
unaware of this and that although he is willing to clear off the
amount in default in the two loans that has been availed of by
him, the Bank is not willing to exonerate him from the liability.
He submits that Ext.P6 notice has been published by the Bank
and that there is every likelihood of the Bank proceeding against
the property for realising the entire debt by disposal of the
WPC 26755/07
:2 :
property covered by Ext.P1 Power of Attorney.
2. The Bank has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated by
the counsel for the Bank that in 19 loan transactions, the
petitioner has guaranteed payment and the property involved is
also mortgaged. It is stated that in all papers for completing the
procedure for loan transaction, there is signature of the
petitioner. In so far as the involvement of the officers of the
Bank is concerned, it is submitted that there are certain
allegations and that include allegations of non compliance with
the procedural formalities for extending the loan facilities to the
borrower concerned. It is submitted that though a criminal case
is pending, that does not by itself is no proof to conclude that the
petitioner is a stranger to the transactions involved.
3. From the facts that have been projected by both sides,
it is obvious that it involves determination of the question as to
whether the petitioner is a party to the loan transaction, whether
he has signed the documents and has availed of the loan and
whether he has been defrauded as claimed. These are not issues
which can be decided on the strength of affidavits. Necessarily,
WPC 26755/07
:3 :
evidence will have to be adduced by both sides and documents
will have to be perused. This can be done only in original
proceedings, for which Act has provided a remedy by providing
appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In my view that is the
remedy available to the petitioner and the writ petition is
misconceived.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp