Disposed

Preety Mathew v. the Authorised Officer, Indusind Bank

Kerala HC6 Nov 2012WP(C)/1565/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a guarantor, challenged enforcement proceedings by IndusInd Bank under Section 13 SARFAESI Act 2002. The Court allowed the petition in principle, directing the Bank to strictly follow statutory procedures without keeping the matter pending due to a related appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents 1 and 2 to strictly follow the procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder.

Preety Mathew Vs the Authorised Officer, Indusind Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/15TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 1565 of 2008 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PREETHY MATHEW, D/O.A.S.MATHEW, APPAKODE MURY, THURUTHIKODE KARA, KALLOOPARA VILLAGE MALLAPILLY TALUK, THIRUVALLA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)

¶9

SRI.MANU TOM SRI.R.JAYACHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDUSIND BANK, KOCHI BRANCH, M.G.ROAD ERNAKULAM.

¶12

INDUSIND BANK,

¶13

KOCHI BRANCH, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

P.M.MANOJ, SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S.DIVYA FUELS, IOC DEALER, CHOTTANIKARA ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN-682 312.

¶15

JOBY K.MATHEW, KALLEPARAMBIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 631.

¶16

RAJESH.P.R., BHUVANESWARI GARDENS, DISTRICT COURT WARD, NEAR KIDANGAMPARAMBU, TEMPLE KIDANGAMPARAMBU, ALAPPUZHA.

¶17

KALAPRATHU THARWAD TRUST, POONJAR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, M.G.MURALIDHARAN RESIDING AT MADAPATTU HOUSE, THALANAD, POONJAR KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN

¶19

SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW R3 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

¶20

SRI.E.M.MURUGAN

¶21

R5 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No. 1565 of 2008 (J)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXTY.P1 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 16.06.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE LOANEES AS WELL AS TO THE PETITIONER.

¶27

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR PUBLIC AUCTION PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN NEWSPAPER.

¶28

/TRUE COPY/

¶29

PS TO JUDGE

¶30

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶31

W.P(C).No. 1565 of 2008

¶32

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2012 JUDGMENT

¶33

Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings taken by the first respondent under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. The main complaint is that the petitioner is a guarantor and her property should not be proceeded with before taking appropriate steps under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder.

¶34

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a guarantor to the loan transaction. Apparently, there is some dispute between the 6^th respondent and the Bank and an appeal is pending before this Court as RFA.No.232 of 2006. Any such dispute between the parties will be considered by this Court in the said appeal and pendency of the appeal shall not affect the right of the Bank to proceed under the SARFAESI Act. However, the Bank will be bound by any decision to be taken by this Court in the RFA.

¶35

¶36

WP(C).1565/08

¶37

As far as this Writ Petition is concerned, there is no reason to keep the matter pending and the only direction that can be issued is to direct respondents 1 and 2 to strictly follow the procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and Rules framed thereunder.

¶38

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶39

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶40

vgs

Preety Mathew v. the Authorised Officer, Indusind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preety Mathew v. the Authorised Officer, Indusind Bank

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

V.K. Kunjamma Vs A.E. Jacob

Jalaludheen Vs the District Collector,Tvm

George Paulose Vs Corporation Bank

Brite Power Launders and House Keeping Vs the Regional Transport Officer Ernakulam

Susamma Vs Senior Geologist

E.M.Abdul Khader Vs Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner