A writ petition on the guranteeing seller the court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to seek remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner is directed to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for further reliefs.
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 MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/15TH POUSHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 110 of 2016 (K)
PETITIONER:
M.S JAYARAJ, AGED 50, S/O.MUTHUSWAMY, RESIDING AT J.V.COTTAGE, NANNANKUZHY, KATTACHALKUZHY P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR
RESPONDENT:
BANK OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM MAIN BRANCH, GROUND FLOOR, PANKAL TOWERS, BAKERY ROAD, SPENCER JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM, PIN: 695 001, REP. BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
BY SRI.V.SUNIL KUMAR,SC BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE, SC BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.NAIR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 110 of 2016 (K)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
P1 - PARTICULARS OF THE LANDED PROPERTIES EQUITABLY MORTGAGED TO RESPONDENT BANK.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
W.P.(C) No.110 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who had availed a loan from the respondent bank and defaulted in repayment of the same, is aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondent bank, under the RDDBI Act, for recovery of the defaulted loan amounts. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the said steps taken by the respondent bank. When the matter was taken up for admission today, it was submitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondent bank that an OA, that was preferred by the respondent bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in 2009, was decreed in the year 2010 and the steps that are now taken by the respondent bank are in execution of the said decree by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is also pointed out that, one of the items that was mortgaged by the petitioner to the respondent bank, has since been sold pursuant to the decree of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In response to the apprehension raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, the learned standing counsel for the respondent bank would clarify that the remaining two items of mortgaged property have not been notified for sale, till date. Taking note of the said submission of the
W.P.(c).No.110 of 2016
: 2 :
learned counsel for the respondent bank, I deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to his alternate remedy under the RDDBI Act, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Thus, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal for further reliefs, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
sm/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether thedebts recovery tribunal is the appropriate forum for restraining the bank from selling mortgaged properties to recover a defaulted loan.
Whether the writ petition impugning the bank's recovery steps should be dismissed with the petitioner directed to approach the tribunal.
M.S JAYARAJ
BANK OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM MAIN BRANCH
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
