Quashed

P.K.Shanavaz v. the Union Bank of India

Kerala HC13 Mar 2014OP(Crl.)/50/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition sought quashing of an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. The High Court held that the application was not filed in compliance with mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Consequently, the order was quashed, recording no objection to the bank filing a fresh compliant application.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in C.M.P. No. 873/2014 is quashed without prejudice to the bank's right to file a fresh application in compliance with the law.

P.K.Shanavaz Vs the Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/22ND PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

OP(Crl.).No. 50 of 2014 (Q)

¶6

CMP NO. 873/2014 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY DATED 18-02-2014

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

P.K.SHANAVAZ, S/O.MOHAMMAD, AGED 56 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, PIONEER LATEX INDUSTRIES, P.B.NO.13, PALAPARAMBA ROAD, P.O.KUTHUPARAMBA, PIN.670 643, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, KANNUR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KANNUR BRANCH, XXIX/2344, HAJI BUILDING, FORT ROAD, KANNUR-670 001.

¶12

2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, KSHB COMPLEX, VIKAS NAGAR, EAST HILL ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 006.

¶13

BY SRI.A.V.THOMAS,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.NIDHI SAM JOHN SMT.M.M.JASMIN SRI.NIDHI SAM JOHNS

¶14

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Kss

¶16

OP(Crl.).No. 50 of 2014 (Q)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27-6-2013 IN WPC NO.8683 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶20

EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 11-7-2013 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

¶21

EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20-1-2014 IN SA NO.570 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶22

EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 13-2-2014 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AND HIS SURETY UNDER RULE 8(1) OF THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES 2002.

¶23

EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 13-2-2014 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AND HIS SURETY UNDER RULE 8(1) OF THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES 2002.

¶24

EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 13-2-2014 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AND HIS SURETY UNDER RULE 8(1) OF THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES 2002.

¶25

EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18-2-2014 IN CMP NO.873 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY.

¶26

EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 26-9-2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 6-1-2014 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶34

O.P.(Crl.)No.50 of 2014

¶35

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2014.

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

When the application came up for hearing on admission, the first respondent bank,who was represented by their standing counsel, submitted that after the amendment, there are certain mandatory provisions to be complied with while filing an application under Section 14 of the SARFEASI Act and in this case that has not been complied with and he had no objection in quashing the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate leaving open the right of the bank to file fresh application after complying with the procedures in accordance with law. So the above submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent is recorded and further proceeding initiated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of C.M.P.No.873/2014 filed by the first respondent bank is hereby quashed as it is not filed in compliance with the mandatory provisions mentioned under the proviso to Section 14(1) of the SARFEASI Act. It is made clear that this will not be a bar for the first respondent bank to file fresh application for

¶38

¶39

O.P.(Crl.)No.50 of 2014

¶40

the same relief after compling with the procedure contemplated under Section 14 of the SARFEASI Act.

¶41

With the above directions and observations, this petition is disposed of.

¶42

Communicate this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery immediately.

¶43

Sd/K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶44

¶45

/true copy/

¶46

P.S to Judge

P.K.Shanavaz v. the Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Shanavaz v. the Union Bank of India

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

Mohammadali Vs State of Kerala

Santhamma Abraham Vs P.P.Singh

Syamala Vs State of Kerala

Sakkeer Hussain Vs Mohammed Koya

K.Vijaya Rani Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Noushad E.K Vs State of Kerala