JUDGMENT : The petitioner is stated to be the present owner of a property, which was originally owned by Sri.A.G.Vijesh, who is now no more, and on the strength of whose Will she obtained the said rights. 2. According to the petitioner, Late A.G.Vijesh had availed of a loan from the respondent-Bank after equitably mortgaging the property in question and had secured it with a Life Insurance Policy taken from the 4th respondent-Insurance Company with the said Bank as the Master Policy Holder and that when he unfortunately died, the Bank is entitled to receive the entire amounts under the said policy, thus obtaining liquidation of the loan liability and consequently freeing the property of all charges on it. She says that the 1st respondent-Bank has, however, not made any requisition to the Insurance Company and therefore, that this Court direct them to do so within a time frame. 3. In answer to the above submissions, Sri.K.J.Saji Issac-learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent-Insurance Company, submits that a policy to cover the loan liability of Late A.G.Vijesh is admitted by his client but that they have not processed any claim under it because no one, including the legal heirs of Late A.G.Vijesh or the Bank, has approached them with a claim until now. He adds that if a proper claim is made by the legal heirs of Late A.G.Vijesh or at least by the 1st respondent-Bank, the same can be considered in terms of law and subject to the policy conditions. 4. Smt.S.Ambily-learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Bank, submits that it is true that the Bank has not made any claim under the policy with respect to the loan availed of by Late A.G.Vijesh; but that this is because they were under the bonafide impression that only the nominee of the policy holder, namely the wife of Late A.G.Vijesh, could have made such a claim. She says that since the 4th respondent-Insurance Company now says that even the Bank can make such a claim, they being the Master Policy Holder, they are willing to do so, and prays that this Court leave them the liberty to proceed against the property in question as per law, if, either the claim is not honoured by the 4th respondent or if it is insufficient to cover the loan liability, adding that steps have already been taken under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity) against it. 5. When I hear the above submissions made on behalf of various parties, it is clear that the essential controversy is as to whether the 1st respondent-Bank can make a claim with respect to the policy availed of by Late A.G.Vijesh. This question becomes relevant because I am told that the wife of Late A.G.Vijesh is refusing to make a claim or reasons that are only known to her and therefore, that no amounts under the policy have yet been disbursed to anyone. Since the Bank has now initiated proceedings against the property in question for the alleged dues in the loan liability availed of by Late A.G.Vijesh, I am certainly of the view that the policy cannot be let without fruit and that the benefits under it must certainly come to the Master Policy Holder, if they are otherwise eligible for the same. In the afore perspective, I order this writ petition and leave liberty to the 1st respondent-Bank to make a proper claim with the 4th respondent as regards the policy in the name of Late A.G.Vijesh, which they shall do so within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; in which event, the Insurance Company will process the same and take an appropriate decision thereon, subject to the conditions of the policy and the applicable Statutes, Rules and Regulations and intimate such decision to the respondent-Bank as also the petitioner, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than one month thereafter. Needless to say, until such time as the exercise as afore directed is completed, all action being pursued by the 1st respondent-Bank against the property in question under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act shall remain suspended; with a clarificatory order that if the 4th respondent-Insurance Company refuses to honour the claim or if the amounts under the policy is not sufficient to cover the entire liability due to the respondent-Bank, they will be at liberty to proceed further against the property in question, from the stage at which it is available today, without any further orders from this Court.