Disposed

Ansu Joseph v. Federal Bank

Kerala HC31 Mar 2016WP(C)/3811/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court extended an interim stay order for one month, directing the petitioner to file a securitization application with the Debt Recovery Tribunal to protect her ownership interest in a property adjacent to a mortgaged asset, rather than pursuing the writ further.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 01.02.2016 extended for one month to enable petitioner to file a securitization application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Ansu Joseph Vs Federal 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

THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/11TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3811 of 2016 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

MRS. ANSU JOSEPH, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.SANTHOSH JOSEPH, XV/275, SEALINE HOUSE, NAZARETH, COCHIN- 682 002.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN KARIPPAPARAMBIL

¶9

SRI. RAJESH CHERIAN KARIPPAPARAMBIL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, 8TH FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶12

2. MS. VIJNA RAMDAS, D/O. RAMDAS, M/S. VRG FOODS, R.K PILLAI ROAD, KOCHI 682 005

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.A.ANTONY SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

WP(C).No. 3811 of 2016 (B)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 06-09-1999.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF DELIVERY REPORT DATED 20-12-1999.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2102 OF 2009 DATED 14-07-2009.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE DATED 27-03-2014.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-04-2014.

¶24

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF CMP NO 3606 OF 2015.

¶25

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT 05-01-2015.

¶26

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF KSEB BILL 16-12-2015.

¶27

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF CMP NO.9 OF 2016.

¶28

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22-01-2015 IN CMP NO.9 OF 2016 OF THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE.

¶29

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF SALE DATED 23-12-2015.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.3811 of 2016

¶36

............................................................. Dated this the 31^st day of March, 2016

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioner, who was aggrieved by the steps taken for dispossession pursuant to Ext.P10 order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, approached this Court seeking a stay against dispossession on the contention that the petitioner was the owner of the property, which was lying adjacent to the property that was actually mortgaged to the respondent bank, and which was not the subject matter of the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Ac,. This Court by an interim order dated 01.02.2016, granted a stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P11 notice to the extent it covered the building owned by the petitioner, and the said stay order continues to be in force even today. When the matter was taken up for orders today, it was submitted by the learned Standing counsel for the respondent bank that the remedy of the petitioner to protect his interest would lie in filing a securitization application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the steps taken by the respondent

¶39

-2-

¶40

W.P.(C). No.3811 of 2016

¶41

bank. Taking note of the said submission of the counsel for the respondents and finding that the interest of the petitioner would be protected by the Debt Recovery Tribunal if the petitioner approaches the Debt Recovery Tribunal with a securitisation application, I direct that the interim order dated 01.02.2016 granted by this Court shall continue to be in force for a period of one month so as to enable the petitioner to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal through a securitization application in the meanwhile.

¶42

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶43

mns/31.3.16

Ansu Joseph v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansu Joseph v. Federal Bank

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

Thankappan P.K. Vs Ram Mohan, Chief Manager/Authorised Officer

K.C.Chandrasekharan Vs Authorised Officer

V.K.Kesava Panicker Vs the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank

State Bank of India Vs M/S.Kinship Services(India)Pvt.Ltd.

Anwar E. Vs Canara Bank, Sme Branch, Kullappully

S.R.Traders Vs the Authorised Officer