Dismissed

Thankamma Mathew v. the Authorized Officer

Kerala HC27 Dec 2016WP(C)/41352/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a petitioner claiming dispossession as a statutory tenant ignoring Vishal N. Kalsaria. The Court held that since an alternate remedy was available under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT which was already pending, no relief was due in the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, reserving all liberties to the petitioner regarding remedies available under SARFAESI Act provisions before the DRT.

Thankamma Mathew 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/6TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C). NO.41352 OF 2016 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THANKAMMA MATHEW, AGED 61, W/O.MATHEW THOMAS, AMATHOPPIL HOUSE, DOOR NO.35/2055A, ARRA - 58, MILLENNIUM ROAD, ADIMURI LANE, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.SUJETH SMT.M.R.REENA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682039.

¶11

2. SHYNY K.J., THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER-APPOINTED BY THE CJM COURT IN C.M.P. NO.1560/2014, KANAKKANATT BUILDING, VALAVI ROAD, NORTH P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI.

¶12

3. BASIL THOMAS, THE PRINCIPAL STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682025.

¶13

4. MOLLY AUGUSTIN, AGED 60, W/O. AUGUSTIN C.V., CHAAKKALACKAL HOUSE, DOOR NO.35/2055A, ARRA - 58, MILLENNIUM ROAD, ADIMURI LANE, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN:682025.

¶14

5. AUGUSTINE V.V., S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 62, CHAKKALACKAL HOUSE, DOOR NO.35/2055A, ARRA - 58, MILLENNIUM ROAD, ADIMURI LANE, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN:682025.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).41352/2016(T)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN VISHAL N. KALSARIA V. BANK OF INDIA [2014 (3) KLT 357 (SC)].

¶20

P2: COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT DATED 3.5.2010 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5.

¶21

P3: COPY OF THE RENT RENEWAL AGREEMENT DATED 26.8.2013 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5.

¶22

P4: COPY OF THE RENT RENEWAL AGREEMENT DATED 26.8.2014 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 & 4.

¶23

P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE CJM COURT.

¶24

P6: COPY OF THE S.A.NO.375/2016, WITHOUT ANNEXURE, DATED 15.12.2016, PENDING BEFORE THE DRT, ERNAKULAM.

¶25

P7: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 24.12.2016 SEEKING RETURN OF PASSION FILED BEFORE THE CJM COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-NIL

KRJ

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J

¶31

- - - - W.P(C) No.41352 of 2016

¶32

- - - - Dated this the 27^th day of December, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner alleges that he was a statutory tenant of a building over which, security interest has been created by the owner, who was a borrower in a loan transaction with the Federal Bank. He further alleges that even though he had the protection of being a statutory tenant, he was dispossessed by the first respondent without adverting to the imperative statutory provisions as also the judgment of the Apex Court in Vishal N.Kalsaria v. Bank of India [2014 (3) KLT 357 (SC)].

¶35

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶36

I also notice that on the same set of allegations, the

¶37

petitioner has already invoked the alternate remedy that is available to him under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and that he has moved a securitisation application numbered as S.A. No.375 of 2016 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for Kerala & Lakshadweep at Ernakulam.

¶38

Taking note of the above fact and being firm in my view that the petitioner cannot be entitled to any relief as sought for in

¶39

-:2:-

¶40

WP(C).41352/16

¶41

this writ petition, I dismiss the writ petition reserving all liberties to the petitioner to the remedies that are available to him under the statutory provisions before the D.R.T or other forums.

¶42

Sd/Devan Ramachandran, Judge

¶43

krj.28/12

Thankamma Mathew v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankamma Mathew 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joshy.K.C. Vs State of Kerala

V.M.Roy Vs the Kerala Agricultural University

Shaji Vs K.S.E.B.

Francis Vs the District Geologist

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs the District Geologist

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala