IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 630 of 2010()
1. V.C. MOHAMMED KOYA THANGAL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :21/05/2010
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A.No.630 of 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010
JUDGMENT
J.Chelameswar, C.J.
This writ appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6224 of 2010-C dated 15th March, 2010.
2. The appellant herein availed a loan from the first
respondent Bank and failed to repay the instalments as agreed upon.
Consequentially steps were taken by the respondents for causing
sale of the mortgaged property under the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
3. The appellant had earlier approached this Court by
way of a writ petition which culminated ultimately in W.A.No.64 of
2009. By the said judgment the appellant was directed to repay the
amount outstanding to the Bank in certain instalments, details of
W.A.No.630 of 2010
– 2 –
which are not necessary for the present purpose. By the
judgment under appeal, the learned Judge recorded a finding
that the appellant could not even take advantage of the
abovementioned judgment in W.A.No.64 of 2009 and pay the
amount in accordance with the directions of this Court.
4. In the abovementioned background, the property
of the appellant was auctioned on 20th April, 2009 and the sale
was registered on 23rd December, 2009.
5. The instant writ petition was filed on 22nd
February, 2010 with two innocuous prayers which read as
follows:
“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
respondent bank to return the documents belonging to
the petitioner, which is deposited by the petitioner as a
security to the loan number 30050719410 availed by
him.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
respondent bank to consider and pass appropriate
W.A.No.630 of 2010
– 3 –
orders on Ext.P9 representation filed by the petitioner
before the bank.”
6. Apart from the various reasons assigned for
dismissing the writ petition, the learned Judge by the judgment
under appeal in paragraph 5 has recorded a finding that the
successful purchaser of the appellant’s property is not made a
party to the writ petition. The learned Judge recorded a further
finding that the explanation offered by the appellant for such
non-joinder of necessary party is not acceptable to the Court. It
appears from the records that the Bank had informed the
appellant by letter dated 10.7.2009 that the property which is the
subject matter of dispute in the instant proceedings was
auctioned on 20th April, 2009. By the said letter, the appellant
herein was given a further opportunity to make remittance of the
amount outstanding for a period of 15 days from the date of the
notice with a caution that the property would be registered in the
name of the successful bidder Mr.V.V.Paul without further
notice. Relevant portion of the said letter reads as follows:
W.A.No.630 of 2010
– 4 –
“With reference to your above letter, kindly
refer to our letter No.RBO KKD:228-16-19 dated
08.05.2009. As you have not complied with the
orders of the Honourable High Court of Kerala,
Ernakulam, in the suit Nos.WP(C) No.37416/2008
and WA No.64/2009, the property mortgaged to us
was auctioned on 20.04.2009 and the property will be
registered in the name of the bidder very soon.
Hence, we cannot permit the time sought by you for
closing the account and if the entire amount is not
paid within 15 days of this notice the property will be
registered in the name of the bidder Mr.V.V.Paul,
without further notice.”
7. The said letter was in the custody of the appellant
on the date of filing of the writ petition. In fact, this letter was
produced as Ext.P7 in the writ petition. In the circumstances,
the explanation offered by the appellant that he was not aware of
either the sale or the information regarding the successful bidder
was rightly rejected by the learned Judge. We do not see any
reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. On the other
hand, we are of the opinion that the instant litigation is a sheer
W.A.No.630 of 2010
– 5 –
abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, it requires to be
dismissed with exemplary costs.
The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed at the
admission stage with costs quantified to three thousand rupees.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge
vns