This writ appeal challenged the judgment dismissing a writ petition filed by a guarantor-mortgagor against SARFAESI proceedings initiated by a bank. The Court upheld the lower court's dismissal, finding the bank's actions legal due to the borrowers' default.
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.ANTONY DOMINIC &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1939
WA.No.381 of 2018 IN WPC.35947/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)35947/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 14-11-2017
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SOMAN AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PANICKER, VETTISSERI HOUSE, KALLADIKODE P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 596.
BY ADVS.SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR SRI.K.AMAL NATH NAIK SMT.DEEPTI SUSAN GEORGE SRI.ARJUN SANTHOSH SRI.RENOY VINCENT SMT.HEBA SARA ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Writ Appeal No.381 of 2018
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of March, 2018
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, C.J.
The appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.35947/17. In the writ petition, the appellant challenged SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank following the default committed by the respondents 3 to 5. It is this judgment, which is under challenge.
Writ Appeal No.381 of 2018
: 2 :
mortgaged by the appellant. These facts would, therefore, show
that the recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank cannot be said to be an illegal one.
fully justified in the conclusions arrived at. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal.
Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE
jes
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the bank against the assured property.
Whether the challenge to the recovery proceedings as illegal should succeed given the appellant's status as a mortgagor-surety.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SOMAN
VIJAYA BANK LIMITED
JIMMY ELIAS
THOMAS MATHEW
ELIZABETH JASMINE
ANTONY DOMINIC
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
