Disposed

M.Hidayath v. Chief Manager (Authorised Officer)

Kerala HC3 Dec 2013WP(C)/28979/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, a guarantor whose property is pledged as security for a loan availed by a co-borrower, sought court direction to permit the sale of the guarantor's co-guarantor's property first. The High Court directed the authorised officer to consider an application specifying the order of sale before the proclamation of sale.

What did the court decide?

Directed the authorised officer to deal with the petitioner's application regarding the order of property sale with notice to respondents before passing the final order.

M.Hidayath Vs Chief Manager (Authorised… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 28979 of 2013 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

M.HIDAYATH, AGED 59, WIFE OF HABEEB, MAMPILLIL HOUSE, P.O PADA NORTH , KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DIST. -690518

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T..P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN (SR.) SRI.K.M.ABDUL MAJEED

¶9

RESPONDENT

¶10

1. THE CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND

¶11

ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002), THE FEDERAL

¶12

BANK LIMITED, KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH, KOLLAM DIST.-690518

¶13

2. MR. ABDUL MUJEEB, SON OF MR. MUHAMMED KUNJU, PROPRIETOR, M/S. ETHIHAD TRADERS, AJMI MANZIL ,

¶14

NEELIKULAM, K.S. PURAM P.O,

¶15

KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DIST-690544

¶16

3. MR. MUHAMMED KUNJU, SON OF LATE VAVA KUNJU,

¶17

KALLOOR HOUSE, NEELIKULAM, K.S PURAM P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY , KOLLAM DIST. -690544

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI. A. ANTONY, SC., FEDERAL BANK

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-122013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 28979 of 2013 (V)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.KNP/SARFAESI/QTR 2/DE-1/2013 DATED 0510-2013 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶24

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE REPRESETATION DATED 8-11-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-11-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶25

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

SMM

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶30

= = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.28979 of 2013

¶31

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = =

¶32

Dated this the 3^rd day of December, 2013

¶33

The petitioner as well as the third respondent are the guarantors to a loan availed by the second respondent from the first respondent bank. Only the property belonging to the petitioner as well as the third respondent have been offered as security interest for the loan

¶34

The petitioner maintains that the property of the third respondent may be sold first before proceeding against his property for sale. It is also asserted that the second and third respondents have absolutely no objection to this course.

¶35

The remedy of the petitioner is to move the authorised officer of the bank under Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002. The decision in (Anil kumar vs. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (2013 (2) KLT 944)) would also come to the aid of the petitioner.

¶36

Any application made by the petitioner shall be dealt with by the authorised officer with notice to the second and third respondents. Final orders as regards the order in which the

¶37

W.P.(C) No.28979 of 2013

¶38

¶39

property shall be sold are to be passed before the proclamation

¶40

of the sale of the items of property.

¶41