The petitioner has approached this Court mainly challenging the course and proceedings pursued by the first respondent / State Bank of India for causing the sale of the property, over which security interest was created in connection with the loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank. The petitioner also seeks for a direction to the first respondent/Bank to regularise the loan account by re-scheduling the E.M.Is enabling him to clear the loan amount.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale has already taken place on 08.10.2014 and the property has been purchased by the third respondent/Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited. It is contended that the third respondent is not authorised to purchase the property and that no Government sanction has been obtained in this regard. The sale is liable to be intercepted and the relief sought for by the petitioner is to be granted, submits the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also points out that the sale is bad in several respects, in so far as the full particulars of the property have not been revealed in the sale 2 notification. Reference is made to Ext. P1 sale deed, wherein existence of a building is mentioned, which has been omitted to be valued or included as part of the Sale Notification published as per Ext.P13.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent/KSIDC Ltd submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived in all respects. Producing a copy of the Memorandum of Association of the Company, it is stated that the third respondent is entitled to purchase the property and that no Government sanction is necessary. Reference is made to Clauses 23 and 26 of the Memorandum of Association, which read as follows:
Clause 23:
“Generally to purchase, take on lease or in exchange, hire or otherwise acquire, any real and personal property and any rights or privileges which the Company may think necessary or convenient for the purposes of its business and in particular any land, building, easements, machinery, plants and stock-in-trade.
Clause 26:
3 “To develop and turn to account any land acquired by the Company or in which it is interested, and in particular by laying out and preparing the same for building purposes, constructing, altering, pulling down, decorating, maintaining, fitting up, and improving buildings, and by planting, paving , draining(farming cultivating and letting on building lease or building agreement) and by advancing money to and entering into contractk s and arrangements of all kinds with builder and others. “
5. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
6. During the course of hearing, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has already moved the DRT, Ernakulam by way of S.A.389 of 2014 in view of the sequence of events and subsequent developments.
6. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that the writ petition is not liable to be entertained and the same is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the matter before the DRT. The challenge raised by the petitioner with regard to the rights and liberties of the third respondent to purchase the property is left open.
4 All the issues are left open to be considered by the Tribunal and no opinion is expressed with regard to the merits involved on either side.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk