Petitioner sought a writ restraining the Bank from proceeding against her property. The Court held that without upsetting the lower court judgment, the Bank is restrained from proceeding.
Bank restrained from proceeding against property until injunction set aside; recovery kept in abeyance.
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 MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/14TH POUSHA, 1938
OP (DRT).No. 4505 of 2013 (O) ------------------------------
OS NO. 678/08 DT 30/9/2010 OF ADDL. SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. ---------
PETITIONER :
----------
SHAKEELA, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.PALAYAMKODE PAREETH, ASTHAMICHIRA, VADAKUMBHAGAHAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DIST
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS :
-----------
1. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP OFFICE OF THE BEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP , PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682036
2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER
3. THE BANK OF INDIA COLLEGE GROUND BRANCH , REP BY ITS MANAGER, ERNAKULAM-682036
R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.ANEESH BY ADV. SRI.S.NIKHIL SANKAR BY ADV. SRI.ADARSH KUMAR BY SRI.P.P.JOYI, SC, BANK OF INDIA
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-01-2017,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
OP (DRT).No. 4505 of 2013 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
P1:A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE ISSUED DTD 22/10/2013 P2:A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO 678/08 DTD 30/9/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
===================== O.P.(DRT) No.4505 of 2013 - D
====================== Dated this the 04th day of January, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner in the present writ petition is concerned
with her property, which is being proceeded against by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent Bank is restrained from proceeding against the property, by judgment dated 30.09.2010 in O.S No.678 of 2008, produced as Ext.P2.
who was the plaintiff therein contended that the sale deed purportedly executed in favour of the first defendant was a sham document. The sale deed was held to be null and void by Ext.P2 judgment and as a consequence, the Bank, who had obtained mortgage of the properties from the first defendant was restrained from proceeding against the property for recovery of
2
O.P.(DRT) No.4505 of 2013 - D
the loan availed by the 1st defendant.
respondent Bank appears and submits that an appeal has been filed from Ext.P2 judgment and the same is pending. It is also submitted that there is a recovery certificate issued on the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in an original application filed by the Bank as against the original borrowers, pursuant to which Ext.P1 proceedings were taken by the Recovery Officer for sale of the property.
3
O.P.(DRT) No.4505 of 2013 - D
The writ petition would stand disposed of, making it
clear that the contentions are left open for the parties to agitate
before the appropriate forum.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
SB/04/01/2017
// true copy //
P..A to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bank can proceed against the petitioner's property despite an injunction in another judgment?.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shakeela
Debt Recovery Tribunal, Kerala and Lakshadweep
Recovery Officer
Bank of India
K.Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
