The Court directed respondents to handover vacant possession immediately and removed them for failing to comply with a previous order to return property after receiving full refund.
Directions to handover vacant possession today and ten days time to remove furniture/fixtures.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2017/15TH ASHADHA, 1939
Con.Case(C).No. 1074 of 2017 (S) IN WA.724/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 724/2017 DATED 08-06-2017
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:
1. M/S. SARAVANA TRADERS, K.K.N.BUILDINGS, BROADWAY,ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. R.NATARAJAN, S/O N.RAMALINGA IYER,OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLEPADY ROAD,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682018.
BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1. SRI. DURGA DAS WADHWANI(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN), THE CHIEF MANAGER & AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SYNDICATE BANK,SHANMUGHAM ROAD BRANCH, PIONEER TOWERS,1ST FLOOR,ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. SRI.ABDUL GAFOOR.K.N,(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN), RANGOON,37/2127A,KATRIKADAVU,KALOOR,KOCHI-682011.
3. SRI.SHUHAIB.V.A,(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN), RAZAK RANGOON,37/2127A,KATRIKADAVU,KALOOR, KOCHI-682011.
4. SRI.HIJAS PARAMBIL(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN), RANGOON,37/2127A,KATRIKADAVU,KALOOR,KOCHI-682011.
R BY SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) R1 BY SRI.R.S. KALKURA, SC, SYNDICATE BANK
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-07-2017,ALONG WITH COC.1078/17 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sou.
Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ &
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J
Cont. Case. No.1074 of 2017, Cont. Case. No.1078 of 2017, I.A.No.844/2017 in W.A. No. 723 of 2017 and I.A. No.845/2017 in W.A. No. 724 of 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6th day of July, 2017
J U D G M E N T
Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ
I.A. No.844 of 2017 and I.A.No.845 of 2017 have been
filed by the erstwhile auction purchaser interalia seeking to recall the order dated 4.7.2017 and for permitting the applicant to put forward their contentions afresh in respect of the order by which they were asked to handover vacant possession.
property was auctioned. The same was purchased by the applicants herein. The Bank took possession and handed over possession to the applicants. It was by order dated 12.4.2017
I .A.844/17,845/17 & COC.1074/171078/17 2
that the applicants were impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 5. We also requested the Bank to ask the respondents to appear, when notices could not be served upon them. They having appeared, we heard the parties at length and we directed re-payment of all the outstanding dues to the Bank. Consequently, the appellants repaid all the dues and also deposited the amount due to the additional respondents 3, 4 and 5 together with interest. The Bank in turn deposited the entire money in the account of the respondents 3 to 5 along with interest. It was expected that they would immediately handover possession back to the appellant.
I .A.844/17,845/17 & COC.1074/171078/17 3
I .A.844/17,845/17 & COC.1074/171078/17
4
case covering a similar situation which was reported in M/s.
S.J.S Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others [AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2421] , the relevant portion thereof is quoted hereunder:
“24. xxx xxx xxx
As far as the third ground is concerned, the appellant was fully aware that the appellant was fighting tooth and nail to redeem its property and that the sale was the subject-matter of scrutiny by Court. If it has chosen to make renovation or investments in the hotel, it has done so despite the knowledge of the precarious nature of its possession. The investments, if any, were a calculated risk taken by the respondent No.6 itself the consequence of which cannot be foisted on the appellant.”
I .A.844/17,845/17 & COC.1074/171078/17 5
actions of the said respondents are clearly contemptuous. We hope that they will not compound the contempt. We thus
close the proceedings.
Sd/-
Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice
Sd/-
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Judge
sou.6/7.
// True copy //
P.A. to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents are entitled to an extension of time to handover possession given the precarious nature of their tenure and allegations of bad faith.
Whether the costs incurred by respondents on renovations made shortly after taking possession can be foisted on the original owner.
Whether the respondents' failure to appear for two hearings constitutes contempt of court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. S.J.S Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and othersReferred¶42
M/s. S.J.S Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others [AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2421] · Who else cites this
M/s. Saravana Traders
R. Natarajan
Sri. Durga Das Wadhwani
Sri. Abdul Gafoor.K.N
Sri. Shuhaib.V.A
Sri. Hijas Parambil
Navaniti Prasad Singh
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
