The High Court dismissed the writ appeal challenging a property sale under the SARFAESI Act. It upheld the Single Judge's direction to seek remedies under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, granting no substantive relief against the sale.
None granted; appellant directed to file application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within three weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930
WA.No. 61 of 2007 ------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23987/2006 Dated 06/10/2006 ....................
APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:
P.M. KUKNJU BAVA, C/O.K.E. BASHEER, KUZHUPPIL HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.
BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J.B.KOSHY, Ag.CJ & V.GIRI, J.
===========================
W.A.No.61 of 2007
===============================
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Koshy, Ag.CJ.
According to the appellant, his property was sold while recovering amounts due to the bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. He contends that the above action is without notice and without jurisdiction and the amount realised from the sale proceedings was meagre and has no reflection to the market value. The learned Single Judge directed the petitioner to avail remedies under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the writ petition was not maintainable. We see no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment. Appellant has to file an application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. However, we give three weeks' time to the appellant to file an application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
W.A.No.61 of 2007
2
Interest Act, 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. If such an application is filed within three weeks from today, it should be
considered on merits in accordance with law.
The writ appeal is disposed of as above.
J.B.KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.
V.GIRI, JUDGE.
bkn/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the sale of property under the SARFAESI Act is maintainable or if remedies lie elsewhere.
Whether the Single Judge erred in directing the petitioner to avail remedies under the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned judgment despite the claim of no jurisdiction in the sale proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.M. KUKNJU BAVA
THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAL BANKING CORPORATION LTD.
DR. C.I.GEORGE
J.B. KOSHY
V.GIRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
