Allowed

Jaquilin Babu Francis v. South Indian Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC25 Jan 2012OP (DRT)/296/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking exclusion of mortgaged property from sale proceedings after depositing the full fixed upset price were granted relief to release the property from charges while allowing fund appropriation for defaulters.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Bank to exclude the property covered by Exts.P2 to P6 from the sale proclamation and release it from charges upon production of this judgment. Bank allowed to appropriate deposited fu

Jaquilin Babu Francis Vs South Indian Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/5TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

OPDRT.No. 296 of 2012 (O)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JAQUILIN BABU FRANCIS VENEETHALAYAM,SAKTHIKULANGARA POST,SAKTHIKULANGARA KOLLAM

¶8

ANILA ALAN,

¶9

W/O.ALAN,ALANCE,MATHILIL CHERRY THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE,KOLLAM

¶10

ASHOKAN,

¶11

S/O.SREEDHARAN,PETTY SHOP OWNER,CHEMPAKAM VEEDU ELAMPALLOOR,SAKTHIKULANGARA POST,KOLLAM

¶12

JOHN ANCIL, S/O.ANCIL,SAKTHIKULANGARA POST SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE,KOLLAM

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1 SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., KOLLAM BRANCH REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BISHOP JEROME NAGAR, KOLLAM 691579

¶16

THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL FOR KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP, KSHB BUILDING, MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM 682036

¶17

THE RECOVERY OFFICER, THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL FOR KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP, KSHB BUILDING, MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM

¶18

BY SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK

¶19

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O.P.(DRT).296/12

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3288 DATED 7.10.1993 IN FAVOUR OF SUBAIR KUTTY.

¶24

EXT.P2TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1169 DATED 6.4.1999

¶25

EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1168 DATED 6.4.1999

¶26

EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.679 DATED 24.2.1999 IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.

¶27

EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.678 DATED 26.2.1999 IN THEIR FAVOUR

¶28

EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3213 DATED 15.11.2005 IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.

¶29

EXT.P7TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE DATED 18.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P8TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2010 IN I.A. NO.798/2010 IN APPEAL NO.11/2010 BEFORE THE DRT ERNAKULAM.

¶31

EXT.P9TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31.3.2010 ISSUED IN THE ABOVE CLAIM PETITION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND OTHERS.

¶32

EXT.P10TRUE COPY OF COUNTER FOIL ISSUED BY THE KOLLAM BRANCH OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF

¶33

EXT.P11TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.1.2009 IN WPC NO.538 OF 2009

¶34

/true copy/

¶35

P.A. To Judge

¶36

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶37

O.P.(DRT).296/2012

¶38

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2012

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

Petitioners submit that the property, having an extent of

¶41

4.3 ares comprised in R.S.134/12 in Block No.1 of

¶42

Sakthikulangara Village which belonged to one late Nazurudeen, was purchased by them by Exts.P2 to P6. It is stated that the deceased had mortgaged the property to the respondent Bank, which was not known to the petitioners. On account of the default committed in repayment, Bank initiated proceedings before the DRT and obtained a recovery certificate. The mortgaged properties, including the one purchased by the petitioners, are now proclaimed for sale. At that stage, petitioners appear to have paid the upset price fixed in respect of the property purchased by them and this amount was deposited with the Bank on 7.1.2012. In this Original petition what is sought for by the petitioners is a direction to the Bank to exclude this property from the sale proceedings.

¶43

O.P.(DT).296/12

¶44

¶45

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Bank also.

¶46

The fact that the upset price fixed by the Bank has been remitted by the petitioners is accepted by the Bank. In such circumstances, fairness requires that the property purchased by the petitioners should be excluded from the sale proceedings now initiated by the Bank. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Bank to exclude the property covered by Exts.P2 to P6 from the sale proclamation, evidenced by Ext.P7. It is also directed that the Bank will be free to appropriate the amount deposited by the petitioners on 7.1.2012 towards the liability of the defaulters and that on production of a copy of this judgment, respondents 2 and 3 will release the above property from all charges.

¶47

Original petition is disposed of as above.

¶48

ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge

¶49

mrcs

Jaquilin Babu Francis v. South Indian Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaquilin Babu Francis v. South Indian Bank Ltd.

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.Y.Peeyoos Vs Ashok Kumar Singh

Bijoy Vs M.M.Shoukkathali, Sub Registrar

A.George Vs H D F C Bank Ltd. and Another

K.Bharathan Vs C.T.Joju

Thomas Vs v.R.Mohanan Pillai& Anr.

C.v.Ismail Vs the Commonwealth Trust (India)