Dismissed

K.M.Shanu v. John Varghese

Kerala HC16 Dec 2011Con.Case(C)/1309/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court closed a contempt petition filed against a bank for allegedly locking a mortgaged property. The Judge held that since a dispute existed regarding payment default, the coercive action could not be called contempt and was left for challenge in the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

The contempt of court case closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the respondent's action in the appropriate forum.

K.M.Shanu Vs John Varghese — Kerala HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

COC.No. 1309 of 2011 (S)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.10895/2011 DATED 08-04-2011

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

SHANU K.M., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.A.M.MAKKAR, KANAMATTATHU PUTHENPURAYIL ARYANKALAYIL HOUSE, MARKET P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN

¶10

SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.M.NOOHUKUNJU SAHIB SRI.SEBIN THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1 JOHN VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMLPLEX BUILDINGS, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., PIN-686 681 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV.SATHISH NINAN, SC.

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

COC.No. 1309 of 2011 (S)

¶16

APPENDIX ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08-04-2011 IN W.P.C. NO.10895 OF 2011 ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF COUNTERFOIL ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 30-11-2011

¶17

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE

SMM

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J.

¶23

COC No. 1309 OF 2011

¶24

Dated this the 16^th day of December , 2011

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

In Annexure A1 judgment this court had permitted the petitioner to regularise the account remitting the entire amounts in default, in two equal monthly instalments, falling due on 30-04-2011 and on or before 31-5-2011. If such remittance is made thenthe respondent Bank was directed to permit the petitioner to pay the future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of reappointment.

¶27

It is complained that inspite of the remittances made in the month of April and May-2011, in compliance of the directions contained in the judgment, the respondents had taken coercive steps during November 2011 and forcefully locked the house situated in the mortgaged property, after evicting the inhabitants. According to the petitioner, such action is taken in violation of the directions contained in the

COC No. 1309 OF 2011

judgment.

Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the basis of instructions received submitted that, after regularisation of the account in the month of June 2011, the petitioner had defaulted payment of amounts due for the subsequent months and the coercive steps under the Securitisation and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act ,2002(SARFAESI Act) was initiated in view of the liberty granted in Annexure A1 judgment to proceed with further steps on the event of default in payment of any one of the future instalments.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently opposed the statement contenting that there was no default in payment of any amount due, and that the bank has not issued any notice intimating such default.

¶33

However, considering the issue I am of the view that there exists a dispute regarding the fact as to whether there was default committed with respect to the subsequent months. Evidently, the alleged action was taken by the

¶34

COC No. 1309 OF 2011

¶35

¶36

respondent after regularisation of the account in view of the direction issued in the judgment. Therefore, even assuming that the coercive steps was not warranted or justified, it is not a matter which can be brought within the ambit of contempt of court. It is left open to the petitioner to challenge such action by approaching the appropriate forum or court, if he has got any dispute regarding correctness of the stand taken by the respondent.

¶37

Under the above mentioned circumstances, the contempt of court case is hereby closed reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the action taken by the respondent by approaching the appropriate forum or court.

¶38

C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶39

smm

¶40

COC No. 1309 OF 2011 4

¶41

COC No. 1309 OF 2011 5

K.M.Shanu v. John Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Shanu v. John Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Cyriac Vs the Dist.Collector

Sreehari.M. Vs the Mahatma Gandhi University and Ors.

Jose Joseph Vakayil Vs Union of India and Others

Geogy Varghese Vs Ammini P.G.

Vinodkumar P Vs Chairman,Federal Bank

Jisha P.Sainudeen Vs M.G.University