Dismissed

Sulfi Nazeer v. the Federal Bank Ltd. & 2 Others

Kerala HC27 Aug 2009WP(C)/20832/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a notice for confirmation of sale regarding a mortgaged property. The Court held that the DRT had already passed a final order, leaving only statutory remedy by way of appeal. The Writ Petition was dismissed, though physical possession disposal was suspended for one month.

What did the court decide?

The notice is upheld. Physical disposition differed for one month. No relaxation of limitation period for appeal.

Sulfi Nazeer Vs the Federal Bank Ltd. & 2 Others — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931

¶4

WP(C).No. 20832 of 2009(Y)

¶5

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶7

SULFI NAZEER, AGED 45,W/O.NAZEER,PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAVA P.O.,CHIRAYANKEEZHU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU RAJAN SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR SRI.P.SAJEEV BABU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶10

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., EDAVA BRANCH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 311, REP.BY ITS MANAGER.

¶11

THE RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP), 8TH FLOOR,K.S.H.B.BUILDING,PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 036.

¶12

HARICHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 42,S/O.SHRI.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, VISHNU BHAVAN,KOCHALAMOODE,EDAVA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP FOR R3 SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) FOR R1

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON 27/08/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

Petitioners Exhibits:

¶16

Ext.P1: True copy of valuation certificate, dt.17.11.2008 Ext.P2: True copy of the order of confirmation, dt.12.1.2009 Ext.P3: True copy of the judgment dt. 15.12.2008 in WPC 32123/2008 Ext.P4: True copy of the order dt.20.2.2009, in I.A.251/2009 in Appeal 9/2009 Ext.P5: True copy of receipt, dt.16.3.2009 Ext.P6: True copy of notice, dt.14.7.2009

¶17

/True copy/

¶18

P.A. To Judge

¶19

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶20

-----------------------------------------------

¶21

WP(C) NO. 20832 OF 2009 ----------------------------------Dated this the 28^th day of August, 2009

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P6 notice issued by the second respondent in furtherance to confirmation of sale ordered vide Ext.P2. The case of the petitioner is that, he had borrowed a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- from the respondent Bank in the year 1999 and when he turned to be a defaulter, the respondent Bank filed O.A. 22/2005 before

¶24

the DRT, Ernakulam, finally assessee on the basis of which sale was conducted and the same was confirmed as borne by Ext.P2. Challenging Ext.P2, the petitioner preferred appeal 9/2009 before the DRT, Ernakulam wherein interim order was passed which however was not complied with by the petitioner on time, but stated as effected belatedly on the basis of the enlargement of time given in this regard. The case of the petitioner is that, it is without any regard to the said sequence of events that, the second respondent has issued Ext.P6 notice which is subjected to challenge in the Writ Petition.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent Bank and also the 3^rd respondent-successful bidder of the

¶26

WPC NO.20832/2009

¶27

¶28

property in question. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents as above, brought into the notice of this Court that final orders already have been passed by the DRT, Ernakulam in appeal 9/2009 filed by the petitioner challenging confirmation of sale vide Ext.P2. A copy of the said order placed for consideration before this Court said order dated 25.06.2009 is stated as served on the petitioner on 31.07.2009. The remedy of the petitioner if any is only by way of appeal as provided under the relevant provisions of statute. No interference is declined under the jurisdiction under the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and dismissed accordingly. However to angle to pursue the statutory remedy and also taking note of the submission that the petitioner is still residing with the family in the building situated in the property concerned the physical disposition will stand differ for a period of one month from today. However it shall not be conceded that the order passed in this regard will extend the period of limitation with regard to the filing of appeal in any manner. It is also made clear that further enlargement of time will provided under any circumstance.

¶29

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶30

dnc

Sulfi Nazeer v. the Federal Bank Ltd. & 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulfi Nazeer v. the Federal Bank Ltd. & 2 Others

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

The Manager Vs State of Kerala and Others

Mr.Pradeep Anand and Others Vs the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal

S.T.Velnandanan Vs Syndicate Bank

C.P.John Vs Deputy Tahsildar

M.C.Babu & Another Vs Reserve Bank of India & Others

Wireless Tt Info Services Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax Inspector & Others