Disposed

Chandrasekhara Pillai v. Authorized Officer

Kerala HC18 Jul 2016WP(C)/23838/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned proceedings under the SARFAESI Act where the Bank had taken possession of mortgaged property. The Court refused further time but deferred the sale date for three months to allow the petitioner to settle the matter or achieve a private sale.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition was dismissed; sale of property is to be deferred for three months from the date.

Chandrasekhara Pillai Vs 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 18TH DAY OF JULY 2016/27TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 23838 of 2016 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI.K.P., AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. KUNJU PILLAI, KKB VILASOM, KUMMANNOOR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 691.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.B.KRISHNA KUMAR SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, TMJ COMPLEX, RAMACHIRA, MUTHOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA.

¶11

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, KONNI BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶12

3. MANJU KRISHNA,

¶13

W/O. RAJENDRAN NAIR, PROPRIETRESS, M/S. MOOKAMBIKA PHARMACEUTICALS, KUMMANNOOR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT ASHA SADANAM, MANGARAM, KONNI P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶14

4. UNNI KRISHNAN PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. KUNJU PILLAI, MANI SADANAM (MANNAMCHERRY), PAYYANAMON P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶15

5. K.P.ANURADHA, W/O. UNNI KRISHNAN PILLAI, PROPRIETRESS, M/S. V STAR GARMENTS & TAILORING, KUMMANNOOR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT MANI SADANAM (MANNAMCHERRY), PAYYANAMON P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶16

2/-

¶17

-2-

¶18

WP(C).NO.23838/2016

¶19

6. RAJENDRAN NAIR, ASHA SADANAM, MANGARAM, KONNI.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶20

R1 & R2 BY SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

sts

¶23

WP(C).No. 23838 of 2016 (D)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DT. 02.1.2015.

¶27

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF RS 4 LAKH DT. 03.10.2015 PAID TO THE BANK.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -------------------------------------------

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶33

=============== W.P. (C) No. 23838 of 2016

¶34

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

¶35

Dated this, the 18^th day of July, 2016

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

Petitioner has approached this Court being faced with proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. It is not in dispute that he is a guarantor and his property had been mortgaged in favour of the Bank. It is also stated that the Bank had already taken possession of the premises. According to the petitioner, he had already remitted 4 lakhs though he was only a guarantor and the balance amount will come to 8 lakhs and interest, for which the petitioner requires atleast six months' time. It is also contended that there is no necessity for selling the entire item of property, whereas sale of 5 cents alone will be sufficient to discharge the liability.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Bank submits that already the borrower had approached this Court by filing a separate writ petition and he was granted an instalment facility to discharge the liability in 12 monthly instalments, who defaulted payment, and therefore, the Bank had taken proceedings under Section 14 of the Act and the Advocate

¶39

W.P(C) No.23838/16

¶40

-:2:-

¶41

Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate had already taken possession of the premises. It is submitted that the Bank is now taking proceedings for sale of the secured asset and there is no reason why further indulgence should be shown to the petitioner. Further, it is contended that as per the valuation statement of the Bank, the property is valued at 18.75 lakhs and the total outstanding will come to 13.5 lakhs. It is stated that it is not possible to bifurcate the property to effect sale and the property can be sold only as a single plot.

¶42

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the proceedings initiated by the Bank as time was granted to the principal borrower to discharge the liability, which he had failed to do so. Merely for the reason that the petitioner is a borrower, I do not think that this Court will be justified in granting further time. That apart, the property has already been taken possession and it shall be open for the Bank to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶43

Though learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for six months' time to settle the entire liability in order to save his

¶44

W.P(C) No.23838/16

¶45

-:3:-

¶46

property, I am of the view that such long period cannot be granted by this Court. However, taking into consideration the request made by the petitioner, it would be appropriate to grant some reasonable time to enable the petitioner to save his property one way or other.

¶47

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner;

¶48

(i) That the respondent Bank shall proceed with publication of the property for sale.

¶49

(ii) However, the date of sale shall be deferred and sale shall be after a period of three months from today.

¶50

(iii) In the meantime, it shall be open for the petitioner to make necessary arrangements for effecting either private sale of the property or by settling the matter with the Bank.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶53

Rp18/07/2016

¶54

//True Copy//

¶55

P.S to Judge

Chandrasekhara Pillai v. Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrasekhara Pillai v. 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

M/S.Prasanthi Cashew Traders Vs the Chief Manager, Canara Bank

Jose.K.a. Vs Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Augustine Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

Mata Amrithanandamayi Math Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board and

Mata Amritanandamayi Math Vs the Keala State Electricity Board

Vijaya Kumar Peter Vs the Hsbc Bank & Ors.