Disposed

Majitha Beevi v. the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC13 Nov 2013WP(C)/11529/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In writ petitions challenging bank loans, the Court held it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding interest rates, fraud, or property nature under Article 226. It directed parties to seek remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and disposed of the petitions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of with directions to file Securitisation Applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within one month. Interim orders remained in force for one month.

Majitha Beevi Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/22ND KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 11529 of 2013 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MAJITHA BEEVI, AMINAS, 360A, KALLAMBALAM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 605

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, (A SCHEDULED BANK), OVERBRIDGE JUNCITON REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶11

THE REGIONAL MANAGER

¶12

THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD OVERBRIDGE JUNCITON, REGIONAL OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR, SC, KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. BY SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR, SC, KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-11-2013, ALONG WITH WPC. 11531/2013, WPC. 11533/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 11529 of 2013 (M)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER DATED 29-03-2005 AND ITS ANNEXURE

¶19

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WPC NO 37248 OF 2008 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

¶20

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11-01-2010

¶21

EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL DATED 22-01-2010

¶22

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PWC NO 3441 OF 2010 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

¶23

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE REPSONDENTS BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPEATIVE SOCIETIES DATED 21-01-2012

¶24

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXHIBIT P5

¶25

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN LEDGER OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN LEDGER OF ABLE C. GOERGE

¶26

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE ACT

¶27

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETIONER TO EXHIBIT P11

¶28

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED OT THE PETIONER DATED 12-12-2012

¶29

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 16-04-2013

¶30

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 2441 OF 2013 OF THIS COURT DATED 04.02.2013.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶32

/TRUE COPY/

¶33

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶34

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶35

WP(C) NOs. 11529, 11531 & 11533 OF 2013

¶36

Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2013

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The grievance of the petitioners who are sisters is three fold and they are:

¶39

(i) The bank can at best charge interest at the rate of 8.25% and not at the rate of 13.25% claimed by it.

¶40

(ii) Fraud is played by the bank by crediting the repayment made by the petitioners to the loan account of another.

¶41

(ii) The security interest offered is agricultural land which is exempted under Section 31(i) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act.

¶42

¶43

WP(C) Nos. 11529, 11531 & 11533 of 2013

¶44

I am afraid that a writ court cannot adjudicate the disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. What is the rate of interest applicable can be deciphered only by a perusal of the relevant records of NABARD and the circulars of Reserve Bank of India. The fraud alleged by the petitioners require evidence for which the parties have to be examined on oath. The question of exemption under Section 31 (i) of the SARFAESI Act depends on the nature of the property to be tested after a local inspection.

¶45

The petitioners have an effective remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Securitisation Applications if any filed within one month from today shall be dealt with by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law. The interim orders passed in these Writ Petitions would remain in force for a period of one month from today under the circumstances.

¶46

The Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶47

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶48

ncd

Majitha Beevi v. the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Majitha Beevi v. the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

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

Shajan Vs C.K.Asokan

Sunny Dasan Vs State Bank of India

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs M.V Kurichan

C.Omana Vs the Additional District Magistrate

M/S. a-One Milk Products (P) Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Joy M.P. Vs the District Collector