Dismissed

Girish Kumar v. Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.

Kerala HC13 Mar 2018WA/617/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ appeal filed by a defaulted home loan borrower against an order upholding a bank's possession proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, directing the appellant to pursue claims before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; appellant directed to pursue claims before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Girish Kumar Vs Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1939

¶7

WA.No.617 of 2018 IN WPC.7474/2018

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)7464/2018 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 06-03-2018

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

K. GIRISH KUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, 18/2315, 'KRIPA', KOOTUNGAL LANE, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI - 632 005, NOW RESIDING AT H.NO.16/2126-K, KAZHUTHUMUTTU JUNCTION, THOPPUMPADY, COCHIN - 682 005.

¶11

BY ADVS.SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA SMT.T.SUJA

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. 715-C, 7TH FLOOR, SPENCER'S PLAZA, PHASE - II, 769, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002, REPRESENTED BY IT'S AUTHORISED OFFICER.

¶14

STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, 12/1052, NEAR GOUTHAM HOSPITAL, PANAYAPPILLY, KOCHI - 682 002.

¶15

R BY SRI.M.JITHESH MENON

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶19

Writ Appeal No.617 of 2018

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13^th day of March 2018

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶23

The appellant, the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C)7464 of 2018, availed himself of two housing loans for Rs.8,58,000/- and 9,50,000/- in 2006 and 2008 respectively. Later, he defaulted.

¶24

Left with no other alternative, the Bank initiated recovery proceedings by invoking SARFAESI Act. In that process, it has taken steps under Section 14 of the Act to possess the property.

¶25

Initially, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.24562/15, in which this Court, indulgently, allowed him the comfort of paying the defaulted amount in instalments. He did not use the benefit extended by the Court. He defaulted. Then, once again, he came to the Court; he filed W.P.(C) No.7464 of 2018.

¶26

The learned Single Judge through judgment dated 6^th March 2018, dismissed the writ petition observing that the second writ petition amounts to seeking a review of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.24562 of 2015, the

¶27

Writ Appeal No.617 of 2018

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

earlier one. The learned Single Judge has further held that such a review is impermissible.

¶30

Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the appellant took house loans and could not repay because of his impecunious circumstances. According to him, the appellant could not be deprived of his shelter.

¶31

The record now reveals that the appellant has already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal questioning the bank's recovery proceedings. Therefore, we cannot appreciate these parallel proceedings before various forums. Yet, we clarify, the appellant can press all his claims and contentions before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, a competent judicial forum.

¶32

With the above observations, we dismiss the writ appeal.

¶33

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶34

Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE

¶35

jes

Girish Kumar v. Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Kumar v. Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rugmini Vs C.D.Bobby

Mukesh Vs Union of India

M/S Builders Association of India Vs the State of Kerala

Dr. A.K.B Sadbhavana Mission Trust Vs B. Srinivas I.A.S

Soman Vs Vijaya Bank Limited

Thajudheen.a Vs State of Kerala