Dismissed

B.R.Santhosh Kumar v. State Bank of India

Kerala HC12 Nov 2014WP(C)/27750/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the sale of his mortgaged property by State Bank of India and the subsequent purchase by Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation. The Court found that since the matter was already before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the writ petition could not be entertained and was dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's rights before the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's rights before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

B.R.Santhosh Kumar Vs State 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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/21ST KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 27750 of 2014 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

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

¶8

B.R.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SUSHAMA SADANAM, THONNAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695317.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.M.PREM SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN (PALAKKAD)

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

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

¶12

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, RETAIL ASSETS CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, LMS COMPOUND, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

3. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KESTON ROAD KAUDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

¶16

R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHYSON P. MANGUZHA R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SC, KSIDC LTD. BY SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 27750 of 2014 (P)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 925/08 REGISTERED ON 16-4-2008 IN SRO MURUKKUMPUZHA.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT TO MORTGAGE DATED 10-4-2008 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF STATE BANK OF INDIA.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LOAN AGREEMENT DATED 10-4-20108 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE AS GURANTOR IN FAVOUR OF STATE BANK OF INDIA.

¶25

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DATED 02-06-2008 INCLUDING THE PROPERTIES COMPRISED IN RE SURVEY NO. 181 IN BLOCK NO. 3 OF VEILOOR VILLAGE.

¶26

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 6(1) IN FORM NO. 5(C) UNDER RULE 8(5) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION (KERALA) RULES, 1990 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DATED 16-12-2009 EXCLUDING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER COMPRISED IN RE SURVEY NO. 181/2 OF VEILOOR VILLAGE.

¶27

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 23-11-2009 OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER.

¶28

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 09-02-2010 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 DEMANDING RS. 37,19,441/- STATING

¶29

TO BE DUE AS ON 31-01-2010.

¶30

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 21-7-2012 ISSUED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FIXING A RESERVE PRICE OF RS. 25,O0,000/- FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 4.02 ARES (9.93 CENTS) IN RE SURVEY NO.181/2/67 OF VEILOOR VILLAGE BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER.

¶31

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26-5-2012 SENT BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KSIDC.

¶32

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 08-10-2012 SENT BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KSIDC.

¶33

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14-06-2013 SENT BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANGER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KSIDC.

¶34

WP(C).NO. 27750 OF 2014 (P)

¶35

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 29-07-2014 ISSUED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FIXING A RESERVE PRICE OF RS. 45,00,000/-FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 4.02 ARES (9.93 CENTS) IN RE SURVEY NO. 181/2/67 OF VEILOOR VILLAGE BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER.

¶36

EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE E-AUCTION NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EDITION DATED 30-8-2014.

¶37

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶43

W.P.(C)No.27750 OF 2014

¶44

Dated this the 12^th November, 2014

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

The petitioner has approached this Court mainly challenging

¶47

the course and proceedings pursued by the first respondent / State Bank of India for causing the sale of the property, over which security interest was created in connection with the loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank. The petitioner also seeks for a direction to the first respondent/Bank to regularise the loan account by re-scheduling the E.M.Is

¶48

enabling him to clear the loan amount.

¶49

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶50

sale has already taken place on 08.10.2014 and the property has been purchased by the third respondent/Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited. It is contended that the third respondent is not authorised to purchase the property and that no Government sanction has been obtained in this

¶51

regard. The sale is liable to be intercepted and the relief sought for by the petitioner is to be granted, submits the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also points out

¶52

that the sale is bad in several respects, in so far as the full particulars of the property have not been revealed in the sale

¶53

¶54

notification. Reference is made to Ext. P1 sale deed, wherein existence of a building is mentioned, which has been omitted to be valued or included as part of the Sale Notification published as per Ext.P13.

¶55

The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent/KSIDC Ltd submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived in all respects. Producing a copy of the Memorandum of Association of the Company, it is stated that the third respondent is entitled to purchase the property and that no Government sanction is necessary. Reference is made to Clauses 23 and 26 of the Memorandum of Association, which read as follows:

¶56

Clause 23:

¶57

“Generally to purchase, take on lease or in exchange, hire or otherwise acquire, any real and personal property and any rights or privileges which the Company may think necessary or convenient for the purposes of its business and in particular any land, building, easements, machinery, plants and stock-in-trade.

¶58

Clause 26:

¶59

¶60

“To develop and turn to account any land acquired by the Company or in which it is interested, and in particular by laying out and preparing the same for building purposes, constructing, altering, pulling down, decorating, maintaining, fitting up, and improving buildings, and by planting, paving , draining(farming cultivating and letting on building lease or building agreement) and by advancing money to and entering into contractk s and arrangements of all kinds with builder and others. “

¶61

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶62

During the course of hearing, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has already moved the DRT, Ernakulam by way of S.A.389 of 2014 in view of the sequence of events and subsequent developments.

¶63

In the above circumstance, this Court finds that the writ petition is not liable to be entertained and the same is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the matter before the DRT. The challenge raised by the petitioner with regard to the rights and liberties of the third respondent to purchase the property is left open.

¶64

¶65

All the issues are left open to be considered by the Tribunal

¶66

and no opinion is expressed with regard to the merits involved on

¶67

either side.

¶68

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶69

B.R.Santhosh Kumar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.R.Santhosh Kumar v. State 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

K.K.Jayajith Vs Dr.Saji Basheer

Abdul Azeez Shareerkutty Vs Union of India

Josemel Boy Vs the Chief Manager

Vasantha Venugopal Vs the Tahsildar

Mar Ivanios Industrial Training Centre Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

M/S. Reliance Security Agency Vs Vijaya Bank