Disposed

The Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Mar 2008WP(C)/9999/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Deputy Tahsildar to forward a pending claim petition (Ext.P6) to the District Collector. The Collector was directed to decide on the petition within three months after giving notice to all parties, and any property sale must submit to this decision.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent to forward Ext.P6 to the second respondent within one month; the second respondent to decide within three months after notice; sale subject to that decision.

The Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶4

WP(C).No. 9999 of 2008(M)

PETITIONER:

THE KADUTHURUTHY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK.LTD,NO.399,KADUTHURUTHY,REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,SHRI CYRIAC MATHEW,

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SMT.THANKOM.G SRI.E.M.MURUGAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF REVENUE,SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM

¶14

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY VAIKOM.

¶15

THE MANAGER

¶16

ING VYSYA BANK LTD, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

SHRI XAVIER THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS THENGUMPALLIL HOUSE, KURUPPANTHARA, MANJOOR P.O.

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

V.GIRI, J

¶21

W.P.(C).9999/2008

¶22

Dated this the 27^th day of March, 2008

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Petitioner is an Urban Co-operative Bank. The fifth respondent, who is the member of the Bank, had borrowed an amount from the petitioner. His wife, Mary, stood as guarantor. Security was offered, in the favour of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deed, in respect of the property having an extent of 17.750 cents in Survey No.224/7A2, Re-Survey No.170/6 and 15 of Manjoor Village. There was default in the re-payment of the amount and the Bank purported to exercise its powers under The Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. Bank submits that as evidenced by Ext.P3, the mortgaged property was taken possession of by them. Thereafter, they came across Exts.P4 and P5 notices of demand under the Revenue Recovery Act. Fifth respondent, the defaulter, brought it to the notice of the Bank. Apparently, proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act have been issued at the instance of the fourth respondent for recovery of amounts from the fifth respondent.

¶25

W.P.(C).9999/2008

¶26

¶27

Petitioner submits that it acquired an interest in the property prior to the commencement of the proceedings at the instance of the fourth respondent. Further the amount claimed by the fourth respondent from the loanee is an excess of Rs.10 Lakhs and the remedy available to the the fourth respondent, Bank, is only to approach the Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. It is submitted that at any rate, the property mortgaged in favour of the petitioner cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Pointing out these aspects, a claim petition has been filed under Section 29 of the Revenue Recovery Act as Ext.P6. Same is pending consideration.

¶28

I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent.

¶29

In my view, contentions raised by the petitioner merit consideration by the District Collector. This is so

¶30

W.P.(C).9999/2008

¶31

¶32

particularly because the petitioner also has a contention that the amounts due to the fourth respondent, Bank, cannot be recovered by recourse to the provisions of the Act. In such circumstances, it is appropriate that an Officer at the level of the District Collector considers the same.

¶33

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to forward Ext.P6 to the second respondent within a period of one month from today. There upon, second respondent shall, after notice to the petitioner, fourth respondent and fifth respondent, take a decision thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of three months, thereafter. Sale of the property forming subject matter of Ext.P6 shall be held only subject to the decision to be taken on Ext.P6.

¶34

V.GIRI, Judge

¶35

mrcs

The Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.V. Suresh Babu Vs State of Kerala

A.v.Sugunadevi & Others Vs State of Kerala & Others

A.Solomon Vs State of Kerala

Salim Babu P.K. Vs Union of India & Others

Nithin B.Lal Vs State of Kerala & Others

A.Shahul Hameed Vs Director General of Police