Dismissed

E.K.Vijayan v. Federal Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC14 Nov 2014WP(C)/26900/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by the petitioner challenging a sale proclamation and eviction proceedings. It held that filing a second petition for the same relief without notice constituted contempt and rejected the plea to withdraw the duplicate petition while imposing a cost.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions dismissed. Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as costs.

E.K.Vijayan Vs Federal Bank Ltd. — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/23RD KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 26900 of 2014 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

E.K.VIJAYAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. KOCHAYYAPPAN, ELAVUNGAPARAMBIL HOUSE, AZHAKAM DESOM, KARUKUTTY, ALUVA, ERENAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

--------------------------

¶11

1. FEDERAL BANK LTD., ANGAMALY BRANCH, K.V. VARKEY MEMORIAL BUILDING,

¶12

ANGAMALY-683 572.

¶13

2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,

¶14

FEDERAL BANK LTD., ANGAMALY BRANCH,

¶15

K.V. VARKEY MEMORIAL BUILDING, ANGAMALY-683 572.

¶16

3. RAJENDRAN,

¶17

S/O. SIVAN MENON, 41/783, PULLEPPADY ROAD,

¶18

ERNAKULAM-682 018.

¶19

R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL)

¶20

SRI.P.R.MILTON

¶21

SMT.SALI. P. MATHEW (MUNNAR)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2014 ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.29372/2014 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

msv/

¶24

WP(C).No. 26900 of 2014 (J)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE RENT DEED DATED 3-7-2007 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RATION CARD NO.1736053122 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶29

EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE VOTERS LIST FOR THE ANGAMALY ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY 2011, PART NO. 019..

¶30

EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22-10-2012 IN CMP 3901/2012 ON THE FILES OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶31

EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13-2-2013 IN IA 526/13 IN SA 122/17 ON THE FILES OF DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶32

EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22-7-2014 IN SA 122/2013.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Ms v/

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶39

---------------------------------------

¶40

W.P.(C) Nos.26900 & 29372 of 2014

¶41

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2014.

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Petitioner is the same in both the cases.

¶44

The first writ petition, ie. WP(C) No.26900 of 2014, is

¶45

filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶46

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the proclamation of sale with DRC No.3479 and e-Sale No.34/2014 dated 16.09.2014 issued by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam.

¶47

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 not to evict the petitioner and his family from the scheduled property where they are residing at tenants unauthorisedly and without due process of law.

¶48

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam to issue a fresh proclamation of sale mentioning the tenancy right of the petitioner in the scheduled building.

¶49

(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal Ernakulam not to evict the petitioner and his family from the scheduled building without due process of law.

¶50

and

¶51

(v) issue such other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court deems fit to grant to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶52

Similar challenge against the very same sale notice dated

¶53

16.09.2014 is raised by filing another writ petition ie. WP(C)

¶54

W.P.(C) Nos.26900 & 29372 of 2014

¶55

¶56

No.29372 of 2014, through another learned lawyer, presumably for the reason that no interim order was obtained in the earlier case. When the second writ petition came up for consideration before this Court on 10.11.2014, the said aspect was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank and it was accordingly, that both the matters are ordered to be posted together.

¶57

The learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.26900 of 2014 submits that, the second writ petition was not filed with any intimation to the said lawyer. The learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.29372 of 2014 submits that, the pendency of the earlier writ petition was not brought to the notice of the lawyer at the time of entrusting the brief.

¶58

This Court finds that the petitioner has filed an affidavit before this Court in the second writ petition, stating that he has not filed any writ petition involving the same relief, which may virtually amounts to contempt of Court as per the law declared by the Apex Court in 1995(3) SCC 757 (Dhananjay Sharma Vs.

¶59

State of Hariyana .

¶60

W.P.(C) Nos.26900 & 29372 of 2014

¶61

¶62

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for permission to withdraw WP(C) No.29372 of 2014. permission sought for is rejected. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. The petitioner is directed to satisfy a cost of Rupees Ten thousand to be paid to the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre within 'one month'. If there is any failure on the part of the petitioner to satisfy the due amount as above, it will be open for the Registrar General to issue necessary certificate in favour of

¶63

the beneficiary, for proceeding with further steps.

¶64

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,

¶65

JUDGE

¶66

E.K.Vijayan v. Federal Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.K.Vijayan v. Federal Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zakkeer Hussain Vs Federal Bank Ltd.

Nabeel Ansari Vs Superintendent of Customs

Madeesh M.P. Vs the Federal Bank

Tessy Tomy Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Kerala State Nirmithi Kendra Vs Deputy Tahsildar

M/S.Maxwell Exim (P) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)