Dismissed

Mr. Sony P.Joseph v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC20 Sept 2016WP(C)/22449/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging SARFAESI proceedings where the petitioner sought to continue an overdraft facility. It held the Court cannot interfere in contractual matters absent total lack of jurisdiction or natural justice violations, acknowledging the remedy under Section 17 for procedural illegality.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed; the petitioner was directed to challenge SARFAESI proceedings in the appropriate forum (Tribunal).

Mr. Sony P.Joseph Vs the Authorised 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

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/29TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 22449 of 2016 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MR. SONY P.JOSEPH PUTHUKUNEL PUTHENPURAYIL, NORTH MAZHUVANOOR, KOLENCHERY, PIN-686 689.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.R.RAJAN SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER), REGIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., FIRST FLOOR, KAVIKUNNEL CHAMBERS, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 661.

¶11

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., KOLENCHERY BRANCH.686 689.

¶12

BY SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

DSV/22/9/16

¶15

WP(C).No. 22449 of 2016 (E)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS :

¶18

P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.MVPA/SAR/LEG/AKP/91/201516 DATED 8.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2 COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 4.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE REPLY NO.MVPA.RO:LEG:GEN:AKP:5:2015-16 DATED 12.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.

¶19

P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.MVPA/SAR/LEG/AKP/87/201617 DATED 6.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶20

P5 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.5.2016 TO 16.6.2016. P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.6.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS :

NIL

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge

DSV/22/9/16

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶27

=============== W.P. (C) No. 22449 of 2016

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this, the 20^th day of September, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

This writ petition is filed challenging the SARFAESI proceedings. According to the petitioner, petitioner is ready and willing to pay the interest portion of the overdraft limit and maintain the overdraft facility. Of course, the petitioner is entitled to challenge any measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by approaching the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act if there is any illegality or irregularity in the procedure adopted. However, as matters stand today, the request of the petitioner is for a direction to the Bank to permit the petitioner to continue with the overdraft facility. I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the contractual matters between the Bank and the petitioner. This Court can interfere only in instances where the Bank acts totally without jurisdiction and there is violation of the principles of natural justice. No such eventuality has arisen in the present case.

¶32

W.P(C) No.22449/16

¶33

-:2:-

¶34

Reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge the SARFAESI proceedings in the appropriate forum, this writ petition

¶35

is closed.

¶36

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶37

Rp20/09/2016

¶38

//True Copy//

¶39

P.S to Judge

Mr. Sony P.Joseph v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sony P.Joseph v. the Authorised 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

Dr. Jacob Mani Vs State Bank of India

M/S Malayalam Industries Ltd. Vs Corporation Bank

Ashik Pradeep v Vs the University Grants Commission Ugc

Renjith Vs Federal Bank

Laxmi Vasanth Vs the State of Kerala

Nandhitha Vs Medical Council of India