Dismissed

Somasekharan Nair v. the Authorized Officer, State Bank of Mysore

Kerala HC15 Jan 2016WP(C)/1493/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court allowed the petitioner, who was in possession of mortgaged property and faced a sale proclamation by the bank/mortgagee, to negotiate a settlement and participate in the auction sale.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach the respondent bank for negotiating a settlement and to participate in the auction sale pursuant to the proclamation.

Somasekharan Nair Vs the Authorized Officer, State Bank… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/25TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).NO. 1493 OF 2016 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

SOMASEKHARAN NAIR S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, INDIRA VILASOM, ERAPERAYAM PERAYAM P O, PACHA, NEDUMANGADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.BREJITHA UNNIKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF MYSORE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH, PONNI BUILDINGS POWERHOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶11

2. I N RAJAN S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, FLAT NO 202, RVK GALAXY EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR, NOW RESIDING AT 'DEVANANDANAM', OPPO. SURYA HOLLOW BRICKS THITTAMANGALAM, KODUNGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695013 3. GIRIJA KUMARI W/O. I N RAJAN FLAT NO 202, RVK GALAXY, EAST NADA GURUVAYOOR, NOW RESIDING AT 'DEVANANDANAM' OPPO. SURYA HOLLOW BRICKS, THITTAMANGALAM, KODUNGANOOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695013

¶12

4. THE RECOVERY OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM, 8TH FLOOR KSHB BUILDINGS PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682031

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE, SC, STATE BANK OF MYSORE BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RENJITH

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).NO. 1493 OF 2016 (J) ---------------------------

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------

¶18

P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE OP IP 1/12

¶19

P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 161/2012 IN OP IP 1/2012 DTD 6/3/2012

¶20

P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE IN DRC 4126

¶21

P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶23

//TRUE COPY//

¶24

P.A TO JUDGE

¶25

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.1493 of 2016

¶26

............................................................. Dated this the 15^th day of January, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner who is stated to be in possession of an item of property which has been mortgaged to the 1^st respondent bank by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, who had availed of loans from the respondent bank, approached this Court through the present writ petition when confronted with Ext.P3 proclamation of sale in DRC 4126 pursuant to O.A.No.530/2013 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In the writ petition, the contention of the petitioner is essentially that he has filed OP IP 1/2012 before the II^nd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which is a creditors insolvency petition and in the said petition, the respondent bank is also a party and Ext.P2 injunction order has been obtained. It is stated that the respondent bank has preferred an appeal against the said injunction order which is pending. The issue in the writ petition, however, is with regard to the inter se rights between the petitioner and the respondent bank over the property in question. While the petitioner is in occupation of the property pursuant to an

¶29

-2-

¶30

W.P.(C). No.1493 of 2016

¶31

agreement entered into with the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, the respondent bank is a mortgagee of the said property pursuant to a mortgage by deposit of title deeds created in their favour by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents in 2009. The respondent bank is pursuing its rights under the Recovery of Debts Due to the Bank and Financial Institutions Act and it is accordingly, that they filed an O.A before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which has now culminated in the issuance of Ext.P3 proclamation of sale in DRC 4126.

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the 1^st respondent bank.

¶33

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, although various contentions are raised in the writ petition, the petitioner would now be satisfied with a direction that he also be permitted to participate in the auction sale conducted pursuant to Ext.P3 proclamation. It is also prayed that he e given an opportunity to negotiate the matter with the respondent bank. Taking note of the said submission of counsel for the petitioner, I close the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to approach the 1^st respondent

¶34

-3-

¶35

W.P.(C). No.1493 of 2016

¶36

bank for negotiating a settlement of liability with the bank as also by permitting him to participate in the auction sale pursuant to Ext.P3 proclamation.

¶37

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶38

mns/15.01.16

Somasekharan Nair v. the Authorized Officer, State Bank of Mysore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somasekharan Nair v. the Authorized Officer, State Bank of Mysore

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

Tharun G. Kumar Vs the District Collector

Abraham Chacko Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Sri.v.M.Tomy Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. Kancor Ingredients Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax Inspector

M/S. Ambal Traders Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

C.K.Rajan Vs the Commercial Tax Officer