Dismissed

Saju Jacob, Rep. by P/a Holder George Xavier v. the Authorised Officer, Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC2 Sept 2016OP (DRT)/78/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an original petition challenging the rejection of a plea to set aside a sale notice in SARFAESI proceedings. The bench held that no interference was warranted as there was no error evident on the face of the tribunal's order.

What did the court decide?

The OP(DRT) No.78 of 2016 was dismissed without any specific relief granted to the applicant.

Saju Jacob, Rep. by P/a Holder George Xavier Vs the… — 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

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/11TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 78 of 2016 (O)

¶6

SA.438/2013 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER/APPLICANT:

¶8

SAJU JACOB,S/O.JACOB, MUTHIRENTHIKKAL HOUSE, KURICHITHANAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY AT 6, DEANSWAY, WOODLOES PART, WARWICH, CV 34 5 DG, LONDON, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER GEORGE XAVIER, ERUMPANATHUMUKALEL HOUSE, THELLAKOM.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1.THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, DORAI SWAMI IYYER ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 035.

¶12

2.THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, 1ST FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶14

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

OP (DRT).No. 78 of 2016 (O)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT. P1	: TRUE COPY OF THE S.A.NO.438/2013 FILED BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
EXT. P2	: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO SET ASIDE THE SALE NOTICE
	IN IA.NO.443/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P3	: TRUE COPY OF IA.NO.460/2016 IN S.A.NO.438/2013 FILED FOR AMENDMENT OF THE APPLICATION.

¶20

EXT. P4	: TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT BANK.	COUNTER	AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
EXT. P5	: TRUE COPY OF THE ERNAKULAM.	ORDER IN	IA.443/2016 BY THE DRT-II,
RESPONDE	NTS' EXHIBITS :	NIL	.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶25

=============== O.P.(DRT) No. 78 of 2016

¶26

==================

¶27

Dated this, the 2^nd day of September, 2016

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 by which an application for setting aside the sale notice has been rejected by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Primarily, I do not think that this Court should entertain this original petition in view of the availability of an alternate remedy under the statute. Still, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the whole procedure adopted by the Bank is without jurisdiction as the property is an agricultural property.

¶30

Petitioner is a subsequent purchaser of the mortgaged property, who had filed SA No.438/2013, which is now renumbered as TSA No.516/2016 inter alia contending that the SARFAESI proceedings cannot be taken against the secured asset, it being an agricultural property. An application for stay was filed earlier as IA No. 1691/13. The Tribunal by order dated 7/6/2013 has observed that the property claimed to be in possession and ownership of the petitioner/applicant is comprised in Sy.Nos.400/10-2 and 400/10-5 with an extent of 50.60 Ares and possession notice reveals that

¶31

OP(DRT) No.78/16

¶32

-:2:-

¶33

possession was taken in respect of Sy.Nos.400/10-1 and 400/1. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant submitted that the petitioner/applicant has no grievance against the Bank in proceeding against the property secured to them allegedly comprised in Sy.Nos.400/10-1 and 401/1. It is also admitted that symbolic possession has been taken. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, Tribunal did not grant any stay as prayed for. Thereafter, the secured creditor had issued an advertisement in newspaper proposing to effect sale of property which is impugned by filing IA No.443/2016. Perusal of the said notice also would show that the proposal is to sell property in Sy.Nos.400/10 and 401/1.

¶34

In such circumstances, I do not find anything wrong on the part of the Tribunal to have dismissed the application for setting aside the sale notice. There is no error warranting interference by this Court in the said proceedings.

¶35

OP(DRT) is therefore dismissed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶38

Rp2/09/2016 //True Copy//

¶39

P.S to Judge

Saju Jacob, Rep. by P/a Holder George Xavier v. the Authorised Officer, Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saju Jacob, Rep. by P/a Holder George Xavier v. the Authorised Officer, Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

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

M/S.Bristo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Canara Bank

Mariya P.A. Vs M.G.University

Abhin K Vs the Director of Technical Education

Bodygear International (P) Ltd. Vs Kadungallur Grama Panchayath

M/S Tuaman Engineering Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer (Enquiry)

Ananthapuri Educational Society Vs Vice Chancellor