Disposed

Kamaludeen.S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Mar 2019WP(C)/7101/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought intervention in SARFAESI recovery proceedings pending a Government Committee recommendation for business revival. Court directed bank to afford hearing and dispose of the recommendation.

What did the court decide?

Directed 3rd Respondent Bank to afford opportunity of hearing to petitioner regarding Ext. P5 recommendations and defer all SARFAESI recovery proceedings until decided.

Kamaludeen.S Vs State of Kerala — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 7101 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KAMALUDEEN.S AGED 52 YEARS S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, THARAVILAVEEDU, MEKON,CHANDANATHOPE.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691014.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN SMT.SHAZIA BINT ASHRAF

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 STATE LEVEL BANKERS COMMITTEE(SLBC), REP.BY ITS CONVENOR, SLBC CELL, CANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

3 UCO BANK KOLLAM MAIN BRANCH, KHAISE BUILDING, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-691001.

¶13

SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP SRI. DEEPAK JOY-SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 7101 of 2019

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner says that he is the proprietor of a Cashew Factory and that he is entitled to the benefits of revival ordered by the Government, through the applicable Government Orders, wherein they constituted a Committee for this purpose. The petitioner says that his case was considered by the said Committee and that Ext. P5 recommendation has been made by them to the respondent Bank, wherein the following action has been recommended:

¶19

“A portion of security mortgaged will be disposed off for clearing the liability as informed by the party. After clearing the existing liability/overdues. Banks may permit an honorable exit to the party.”

¶20

The petitioner says that even though Ext. P5 has been issued as early as on 10-01-2019, the 3^rd respondent Bank is still proceeding for recovery against him under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

¶21

Security Interest Act 2002 ('the SARFAESI Act' for short) without consideration of the recommendations therein. He therefore

¶22

WP(C).No. 7101 of 2019 3

¶23

prays that the 3^rd respondent Bank be directed to consider Ext. P5 and take appropriate action thereon, after affording him an opportunity of being heard.

¶24

Sri. Deepak Joy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent Bank, concedes that Ext. P5 recommendation has been made by the Committee constituted by the Government and affirms that a representative of the 3^rd respondent was also part of the said Committee. He, therefore, says that Ext. P5 will certainly be considered by his client appropriately before any further action is taken on the basis of Ext. P6 sale notice.

¶25

Taking into consideration the afore circumstances and particularly the fact that the recommendations made by the Committee in Ext. P5, were in the presence of a representative of the 3^rd respondent-Bank on the board, I deem it appropriate to direct the 3^rd respondent to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, so as to work out the recommendations made in Ext. P5, to the extent it is practically possible.

¶26

With this in perspective, I direct the petitioner to mark appearance at the Office of the 3^rd respondent at 11 am on

¶27

WP(C).No. 7101 of 2019

¶28

¶29

26-03-2019, with all relevant documents and materials, so as to impel his request/claim, based on the recommendations in Ext. P5 and the Competent Authority of the Bank will consider the same in terms of law and issue an appropriate order within a further period of one week thereafter; and will also communicate the resultant order to the petitioner without any further delay.

¶30

Needless to say, until such time as the exercise as afore is completed, all further action being pursued by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act will stand deferred.

¶31

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

SVP

¶36

WP(C).No. 7101 of 2019

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 29/12/2018. EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 07/11/2018. EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE G.O.DATED 14/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE REVIVAL APPLICATION DATED 15/12/2018. EXHIBIT P5 A COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10/01/2019. EXHIBIT P6 A COPY OF THE SALE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 16/02/2019. EXHIBIT P7 A COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALAM MANORAMA DATED 07/02/2019.

¶41

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

PA TO JUDGE

Kamaludeen.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamaludeen.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binu Krishnan.B Vs State of Kerala

Subha.K Vs Syndicate Bank

Nirmala Kumari Vs the Sub Collector/

Sivanandan.N Vs Poovattoor East Service Co-Operative Bank Limited

N.P.Poulose Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies General

Mini Kumari, Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies