Allowed

Suma S v. the Authorized Officer

Kerala HC8 Aug 2016WP(C)/19139/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition filed by a tenant claiming interest in a secured asset. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the already initiated possession proceeding within fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate within fifteen days in proceeding M.C.No.99/2016.

Suma S Vs the Authorized Officer — 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

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/17TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 19139 of 2016 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUMA S, D/O. LATE SOMAN, AGED 31 YEARS, T.C 14/1443, LILLY DALE, PAROTTUKONAM, NALANCHIRA P.O.,ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.BREJITHA UNNIKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, (THE CHIEF MANAGER), STATE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.

¶11

2. THE STATE BANK OFINDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PERSONAL BANKING BRANCH, P.B. NO. 1139, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.

¶12

3. USHA SHYLAJA JOSEPH, W/O.LATE JL MADHUKUMAR, FLAT NO. 51,IRIS, GULMOHAR GARDEN, VATIKA, JAIPUR.755 046.

¶13

R1-R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) BY SMT.S.AMBILY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.V.

¶16

WP(C).No. 19139 of 2016 (N) ----------------------------

¶17

APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 07/01/2016 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL -----------------------

/TRUE COPY/

P.S TO JUDGE

K.V.

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.19139 of 2016

¶22

Dated this the 8^th day of August 2016

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Petitioner claims to be a tenant of a secured asset. In fact, the respondent Bank had already taken symbolic possession of the premises and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had already passed an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the premises. The petitioner relies upon Ext.P1, an agreement prepared in a stamp paper purchased on 07/01/2016 by which a claim has been made.

¶25

Be that as it may, if the petitioner has a claim that she is the tenant of the secured asset, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and sustain her claim.

¶26

According to the Bank, earlier there was a tenant in the secured asset, who vacated the premises, after notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was affixed in the said premises. No other claim had been made before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶27

W.P.C.No.19139/2016

¶28

¶29

However, taking into consideration the claim made by the petitioner, it is appropriate for her to ventilate her grievance by approaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court.

¶30

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶31

(i) Petitioner is given fifteen days' time to file an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, staking a claim in the proceeding M.C.No.99/2016, which is already initiated by the respondent Bank.

¶32

ii) On receipt of the said application, the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall consider the matter, after notice to the respondent Bank and take appropriate decision, as early as possible and not later than two months from the date of receipt of the application along with the copy of this judgment.

¶33

(sd/-)

¶34

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶35

jsr

Suma S v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suma S 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

V.P. Foller Flour Mills Vs Dr. Asha Thomas

Ussan a Vs the Authorised Officer

C.K.Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Shyju Antony Vs the District Collector

Rahila Beevi Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Madhavan Nair Vs Authorised Officer, District Co-Operative Bank