Disposed

Devasia Devasia v. the Authorized Officer

Kerala HC5 Oct 2016RP/874/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition challenged an order dismissing a writ petition against enforcement proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. While the court noted no substantial ground for review, it directed the bank to proceed with sale proceedings after a three-month moratorium to allow the petitioners to settle the liability.

What did the court decide?

Bank directed to proceed with sale proceedings; actual possession to be taken only after a period of three months.

Devasia Devasia Vs the Authorized Officer — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/13TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 874 of 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 31076/2016, DATED 23-09-2016

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/WRIT PETITIONERS :

¶8

1. DEVASIA DEVASIA, SON OF DEVASIA KULAMAKKAL, AGED 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT KULAMAKKAL HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SUNNY V.ZACHARIA,

¶10

SON OF SCARIA, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT KULAMAKKAL HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3. ROSELIN SEBASTIAN, WIFE OF SUNNY ZACHARIA, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT KULAMAKKAL HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶12

4. MATHEW CYRIAC,

¶13

SON OF KURIAN, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT KULAMAKKAL HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶14

5. TESSY MATHEW,

¶15

WIFE OF MATHEW CYRIAC, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT KULAMAKKAL HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶16

6. BIBIN JOY, SON OF JOY JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT THENGUMPALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶17

7. STEPHIN BIBIN, WIFE OF BIBIN JOY, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT THENGUMPALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶18

BY SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS. SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SMT.A.ANJANA SMT.K.S.SMITHA SMT.T.T.SHANIBA SRI.G.HARIHARAN

¶19

..2/-

¶20

..2..

¶21

RP.No. 874 of 2016

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶23

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, (APPOINTED UNDER THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MAMMOOD BRANCH, MAMMOOD, PB.NO.1, MAMMOOTTIL BUILDINGS, KOTTAYAM 686 553.

¶24

2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MAMMOOD BRANCH, MAMMOOD, PB.NO. 1, MAMMOOTTIL BUILDINGS, KOTTAYAM 686 553, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, (APPOINTED UNDER THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002).

¶25

BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, S.C, SBT

¶26

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

Msd.

¶28

RP.No. 874 of 2016

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶31

ANNEXURE 1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.09.2016 PASSED IN W.P(C).NO. 31076/2016.

¶32

ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE CAVEAT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶39

=============== R.P.No.874 of 2016

¶40

in W.P. (C) No.31076 of 2016

¶41

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

¶42

Dated this, the 5^th day of October, 2016

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

This review petition has been filed seeking to review judgment dated 23/9/2016. In fact, there is nothing to be reviewed as far as the judgment is concerned on account of the fact that this Court did not entertain the writ petition which was filed challenging the proceedings taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. It is settled law that the Courts cannot interfere with proceedings under the SARFAESI Act unless there is any arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights shown in the matter. In so far as no such eventuality has been projected in the writ petition, the writ petition was rightly rejected.

¶45

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners however submits that petitioners only seek three months' time to settle the entire liability due to the Bank and until such period, the Bank may be restrained from taking coercive steps against the petitioners. It is stated that the properties mortgaged owe

¶46

R.P.No.874 of 2016 in W.P. (C) No.31076 of 2016

¶47

-:2:-

¶48

substantial value which includes estate as well as residential houses. According to the learned counsel, though actual possession has not been taken on account of the dismissal of the writ petition, Bank may proceed further in the matter.

¶49

The above request is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank inter alia submitting that the judgment does not warrant any review. Further, it is stated that Bank is entitled to proceed further since the liability is so huge and the Bank should not be left in a situation where the Bank is unable to take any further steps in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioners however submits that petitioners do not intend to oppose any action being taken by the Bank with reference to the above matter and shall not preclude the right of the Bank in any manner by creating any obstruction. However, petitioners require three months' time to settle the entire liability.

¶50

Having regard to the aforesaid submission, though I am not inclined to entertain the review petition as sought for, the following direction can be issued in the review petition:-

¶51

(i) That the Bank shall proceed with the SARFAESI

¶52

R.P.No.874 of 2016 in W.P. (C) No.31076 of 2016

¶53

-:3:-

¶54

proceedings and take steps for effecting sale of the property.

¶55

(ii) However, the sale shall be proclaimed to be held after a period of three months and actual possession may be taken only after the said period. In the meantime, it shall be open for the review petitioners to arrange settlement of the liability in whatever manner possible.

¶56

Review petition is disposed of as above.

¶57

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶58

Rp5/10/2016

¶59

//True Copy//

¶60

P.S to Judge

Devasia Devasia v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devasia Devasia v. the Authorized Officer

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

Abdul Gafoor E.S. Vs the Federal Bank Limited

V.K.Rakesh Vs Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals)

A.Sharafueeen Vs the Branch Manager

Bank of Baroda Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

S.Najeem Vs Commercial Tax Officer

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Grand Auditorium