Dismissed

Justin Raj v. State Bank of India

Kerala HC27 Sept 2016OP (DRT)/32/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a sale certificate issued under the SARFAESI Act, alleging the sale of agricultural property was void. The High Court noted the petitioner filed an application under Section 17 of the Act which was dismissed for default. Finding that an alternative remedy was available and not prosecuted diligently, the Court dismissed the petition and refused further intervention.

What did the court decide?

Original petition dismissed; no direction to accept liability or settle debt barred; no time granted.

Justin Raj Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/5TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 32 of 2016 (O)

¶6

SA 353/2011 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

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

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

1. JUSTIN RAJ, S.K.BHAVAN, ARUMANOORKADA, THIRUPURAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

2. N.SATHYANESAN,

¶11

S.K.BHAVAN, ARUMANOORKADA, THIRUPURAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY ADVS.SMT.K.P.SANTHI

¶13

SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN (MUTHUKULAM)

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER.

¶16

2. NIZAMUDIN, ANGAVILA HOUSE, KILIKOLLUR, CHERI.

¶17

R1 BY SRI.TOM K.THOMAS

¶18

R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J PANICKER

¶19

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

K.V.

¶21

OP (DRT).No. 32 of 2016 (O)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

-------- P1	--------------- COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED.10.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE BANK.
P2	COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.606/2011 EXECUTED BY THE BANK IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P3	COPY OF SA NO.353 OF 2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS WITHOUT ANNEXURES.
P4	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD.7.9.2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUPURAM.
P5	COPY OF IA NO.2427/2013 IN SA NO.353 OF 2011 OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.
P6	COPY OF THE IA NO.1929 OF 2015 IN SA NO.353 OF 2011.
P7	COPY OF THE IA NO. 1930 OF 2015 IN SA NO.353 OF 2011.
P8	COPY OF OS NO.632 OF 2012 PENDING BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.
P9	COPY OF THE REPORT IN OS NO.632 OF 2012 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶30

O.P.(DRT) No. 32 of 2016

¶31

Dated this the 27^th day of September, 2016

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Petitioners have approached this Court to set aside Ext.P2 and for a direction to the respondent Bank to accept the decree debt from the petitioners and settle the liability. Ext.P2 is a sale certificate issued by the authorised officer of the respondent Bank in exercise of power under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. According to the petitioners, the sale is void as the property involved is an agricultural property. But on perusal of record, it is seen that the petitioners had already challenged the measures taken by the respondent Bank under Section 13 (4) by filing an application under Section 17 of the Act. It is stated that the said application was dismissed for default. At this stage, this writ petition is filed.

¶34

According to the petitioners, an application is filed

¶35

before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to set aside the order dated 11.7.2014 and to restore the same after condoning

¶36

O.P.(DRT) No. 32 of 2016

¶37

-2-

¶38

delay of 342 days . However, no action has been taken in the matter. Reference is also made to O.S.No.632 of 2012 filed by the third party against the Bank and certain others.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that he is the auction purchaser. Pursuant to Ext.P2 Sale Certificate, he had taken possession of the property and the applications filed by the petitioners before the Debts Recovery Tribunal has been dismissed. Even the application to restore the application on file has been dismissed.

¶40

Having regard to the fact that an alternative remedy

¶41

was available to the petitioners and the petitioners had chosen to avail the alternative remedy and did not prosecute the matter in the proper perceptive, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering in Ext.P2 sale certificate. It is open for the petitioners to proceed further in accordance with law. I do not think that this Court will be justified in further granting time to the petitioners to settle the liability with the

¶42

O.P.(DRT) No. 32 of 2016

¶43

-3-

¶44

respondent Bank.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank

¶46

also submits that the liability of the respondent Bank had been settled after sale of the property.

¶47

In the said circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as sought for. Original petition is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M. SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Scl/27.09.2016

Justin Raj v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Justin Raj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fathima P.P. Vs Kannur University

Satheesh Pattani Vs State of Kerala

Mani A.V. Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

M/S.Safa Plywood Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

State Bank of India Vs Shanmugham P.N.

Daniel Vs the Additional District Magistrate