The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal challenging a judgment that stayed enforcement proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the agricultural nature of the property is a question of fact for the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Writ appeal dismissed; right to approach the Tribunal reserved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/1ST ASWINA, 1937
WA.No. 2080 of 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.12391/2015, DATED 20-05-2015
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :
VENUKUMAR K., AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, 103, RAMYA AGENCY, F4 CROSS, 10TH MAIN, NEAR BWSSB WATER TANK, JEEVAN BEEMA NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 075.
BY ADVS.SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :
1. ICICI BANK LIMITED, LAND MARK,
2. ABHA THANGOOR VASUDEVAN,
BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. &
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
================
W.A. No. 2080 of 2015
================
Dated this, the 23rd day of September, 2015
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J.
This appeal is filed by the petitioner in WP(C) No.12391/2015 challenging judgment dated 20/5/2015. Writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act). According to the petitioner, security interest created is in respect of agricultural property and therefore proceedings under the SARFAESI Act cannot be initiated. In fact, the petitioner had approached the Court at a time when the proceedings were taken by the Bank invoking Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
W.A. No.2080/15
-:2:-
bringing a purchaser. Further proceedings were also stayed for a period of three months. It was mentioned that if the petitioner fails to pay off the entire liability within the three months period, the Bank was entitled to sell the property in accordance with law.
W.A. No.2080/15
-:3:-
This Court cannot adjudicate on such factual disputes.
In the result, we do not think that there is any error in the judgment, which warrants interference at the appellate stage. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed reserving right of the appellant to approach the Tribunal for appropriate orders.
Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
Rp
23/09/2015
//True Copy//
PS to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can adjudicate on the question of whether the mortgaged property is agricultural land.
Whether the Single Judge erred in staying the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Venukumar K.
ICICI Bank Limited
Ashok Bhushan
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
