The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging actions under the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that such challenges are the exclusive domain of the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17, and the writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to statutory remedies.
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 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933
WP(C).No. 5579 of 2011(V)
--------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
S.S. ANIL KUMAR, M/S.VIGNESWARA ENTERPRISES, CPT JUNCTION, NETTAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH PANICKER.
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S AUTHORISED OFFICER/ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION BRANCH, CHILD WELFARE COMPLEX, LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.
BY ADV. MR.R.S. KALKURA, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs
WP(C).No. 5579 of 2011(V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURE:
EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.SARB/TVM/2372/10-11 DATED 20/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.
EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 18/12/2010 ISSUED BY ADV. SHEEJA KUMARI, TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P3: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 05/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4: COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 18/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.
EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 18/02/2011 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT BANK.
ANNEXURE-A: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR Rs.2,20,000/- DATED 25/03/2004 ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATTOM BRANCH.
ANNEXURE-A (I.A.7359/2011): COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR Rs.1,30,000/- DATED 16/04/2004 ISSUED BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATTOM BRANCH.
ANNEXURE-B: COPY OF THE NOTICE AFFIXED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK ON THE PETITIONER'S HOUSE.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
W.P.(C) No.5579 OF 2011
Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges proceedings under the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. This Court passed the
following interim orders on;
7.3.2011,
“Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent bank is directed to get instructions and to file statement, if so advised.
Meanwhile dispossession of the petitioner from the property shall be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) within three weeks from today.
Post after 3 weeks”.
and
4.4.2011,
“I.A.No.6104 of 2011
It is stated that the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-. The petitioner is seeking extension for payment of balance amount for a period of 2 weeks, which is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent.
Considering all aspects, I am of the view that, extension can be granted, provided, the petitioner remits the balance amount of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) on or before 16.4.2011 and remits further amounts of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) each, on or before 30.4.2011 and and 20.5.2011.
W.P.(C)No.5579/11
2
Post on 26.5.2011.
Interim order will continue till then, if the conditions stipulated as above is complied with. It is made clear that, on the event of default in payment of any one of the amounts stipulated above, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps.”
the directions in the said orders have not been complied with.
In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek statutory remedies, this writ petition is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
acd
W.P.(C)No.5579/11 3
W.P.(C)No.5579/11 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow a writ petition challenging proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.S. Anil Kumar
State Bank of India
S. Sri Jagan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
