Appeal against Single Judge's order declining writ petition in SARFAESI enforcement action. High Court dismissed appeal citing repeated litigation and continued default by appellant.
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
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 26TH MAGHA, 1939
WA.No. 206 of 2018 IN WPC. 36357/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 36357/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 04-01-2018
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER
K.K.ALIYAS AGED 53 YEARS, S/O KURIAKOSE, KOCHAKKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, VILANGU PO, ERNAKULAM -683561.
BY ADV.SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:
AUTHORISED OFFICER, REPCO HOME FINANCE LTD. 41/4057A. OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM -682018.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER AND DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (RECOVERY) MR.K.S MADHUKAR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
jjj
ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. &
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
Writ Appeal No. 206 of 2018
Dated: 15th February, 2018
J U D G M E N T
Antony Dominic, C.J.
SARFAESI proceedings initiated against the appellant was questioned by him in the writ petition. Taking note of the fact that, on an earlier occasion this Court had, by Ext.P1 judgment, granted instalment facility and default committed by the appellant resulted in the impugned proceedings, the learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition. It is this judgment which is challenged before us.
W.A. No. 206/2018
-2-
also informed that a Securitization Application filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal also met with similar fate. That means, this is the third litigation at the instance of the appellant. These factual details would justify the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the appellant is not entitled to the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Needless to say that this judgment will not stand in the way of the appellant in seeking reliefs either from the Bank or from other forum.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No Costs
Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC, CHIEF JUSTICE.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
jjj
17/02/2018
K.K.ALIYAS
AUTHORISED OFFICER, REPCO HOME FINANCE LTD.
ANTONY DOMINIC
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
