Dismissed

Najeeb P.P. v. State Bank of Travancore

Kerala HC11 Aug 2016Crl.MC/1782/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 CrPC challenging an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The court held that an opportunity of hearing was afforded via the Section 13(2) notice, and maintained remedial provisions under Section 17(1) existed, rendering the writ petition maintainable via alternative remedies.

What did the court decide?

The petition will stand dismissed. No interference with the impugned order.

Najeeb P.P. Vs State Bank of Travancore — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/20TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1782 of 2016 ()

¶6

CMP 318/2016 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD.

¶7

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

NAJEEB P.P., S/O.ABDULLA O.T., PAZHAYAPATTILATH HOUSE, KUNNUMKAL.P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶11

1.STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, NELESHWAR BRANCH, NILESWAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, SRI.RAJESH KUMAR.P.V., S/O.P.T.VAVA, AGED 44 YEARS, CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, NILESWAR BRANCH, VYAPARA BHAVAN BUILDINGS, WEAVERS STREET, NILESHWAR - 671 314.

¶12

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

R1 BY SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) SRI.JAYESH MOHAN KUMAR, SC BY ADV. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA.M.K.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 1782 of 2016 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶19

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.2.2016 IN CMP.318/2016 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL ------------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶25

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

¶26

Crl. M.C. No. 1782 of 2016

¶27

Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2016

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

1.Under challenge in this petition filed under Section 482 of

¶30

the Code of Criminal Procedure is Annexure-A2 order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( herein after referred to as“SARFAESI Act” for brevity).

¶31

2.The petitioner herein availed a vehicle loan for a sum of Rs. 24,40,000/- on 14.08.13 for the purchase of an 'Ashok Leyland Chassis'. The petitioner committed default in repaying the instalments. The asset was treated as a Non Performing Asset and notice under Section 13(2) was issued. Later, the Bank has initiated proceedings under Section 14 (1) of the Act. The said application was allowed and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take possession of the vehicle and to deliver the same to the

¶32

Crl. M.C. No. 1782 of 2016

¶33

¶34

petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed without notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the petitioner is unable to pay the entire amount at this particular point of time and prays for appropriate orders to make payment in instalments.

¶35

3.The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No 27047/15 and had invited a judgment as per which he was ordered to pay the defaulted amount in 10 equal instalments. He failed to comply with the directions in the said judgment. Relying on the decision of this Court in Radhakrishnan.V.N. V State of Kerala [ 2008 (4) KHC 989 ] it is urged that the proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Act is not one taken under the provisions of the Code and hence the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

¶36

Crl. M.C. No. 1782 of 2016

¶37

¶38

4.Having heard the rival submissions , I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case for interference in exercise of the powers under section 482 of the Code. The notice under section 13 (2) of the Act was admittedly served on the petitioner and he had failed to respond to the same . The loan was treated as NPA on 31.10.2014. The Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others , 2010 (8) SCC 110 has held that the remedy of filing of an application under S.17

¶39

(1) against the action taken under S.14 is always available.

¶40

No interference is warranted and this petition will stand dismissed .

¶41

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶42

SKS

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

P.A. TO JUDGE

Najeeb P.P. v. State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Najeeb P.P. v. State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Femina Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Tony Vs State of Kerala

Noufal Vs State of Kerala

Jinu Mon Vs Mara Pandiyan, I.A.S.

Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

Hemanath P.K Vs the Sub Inspector of Police