Review petition by SBI challenging a judgment that allowed a writ petitioner to hold a hypothecated vehicle. The court rejected the review, clarifying that hypothecation rights persist and are not extinguished by registration of a fraudulent sale.
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 ASHOK MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1942
RP.No.556 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 30979/2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 30979/2019(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 27.11.2019
REVIEW PETITIONER/THIRD PARTY:
STATE BANK OF INDIA GURUVAYUR BRANCH, KERALA TOWERS, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
BY ADVS. SRI.G.G.MANOJ SRI.S.SARATH PRASAD
RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS:
1 MR.ARUN ARAVINDAN NAIR, S/O.ARAVAINDAN NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS, PRASANTHY HOUSE, PUTHUR, OMASSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE – 373 572.
2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR TEMPLE POLICE STATION, GURUVAYOOR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN – 680 101.
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR TEMPLE POLICE STATION, GURUVAYOOR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN – 680 101.
4 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) R1 BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH OTHERS PRESENT:
SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No.556 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 30979/2019
- 2 -
ORDER
Dated this the 11th day of November 2020
The State Bank of India is the review petitioner
seeking to review the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.30979/2019. It is stated that the vehicle which presently stands in the name of the writ petitioner bearing Regn.No.KL-46/R-8010 was actually purchased by
the previous owner, Syamala Venugopal, after hypothecating the vehicle with the SBI and the writ petitioner purchased that vehicle from Syamala Venugopal and got it registered in his name, the registration certificate of which is produced as Ext.P1
in the writ petition. The original registration certificate in the name of Syamala Venugopal was also produced as Ext.P2. A case was registered as Crime
No.302/2019 before the Guruvayur Temple Police Station against Syamala Venugopal and her son Vivek for offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC. The allegation therein was that Syamala Venugopal and her son Vivek had
RP.No.556 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 30979/2019
- 3 -
defrauded the SBI and obtained a loan by producing
forged documents and the investigation with respect to those forged documents was continuing. In view of the
fact that the writ petitioner was the bona fide purchaser from Syamala Venugopal on the basis of the documents produced and on the submission that there was no hypothecation endorsed in the registration certificate, the writ petition was allowed with a direction to the writ petitioner to produce the car, as and when required, before the investigating officer for investigation in connection with that crime.
2. The SBI is now aggrieved by that judgment
stating that there is outstanding hypothecation on the car and therefore, the writ petitioner does not become
the registered owner of the vehicle free from encumbrances. The judgment which is now sought to be
reviewed does not state anything regarding curtailment
of the rights of the bankers. If they have any
hypothecation rights over the vehicle, which is in the possession of the writ petitioner, nothing would prevent them from taking action, in accordance with law
RP.No.556 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 30979/2019
based on the hypothecation agreement between the Bank
and Syamala Venugopal, the previous owner. In case, the debt has not been cleared by her, the lien of the Bank
over the movable asset would continue.
With this observation, the review petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
jg
RP.No.556 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 30979/2019
- 5 -
APPENDIX
REVIEW PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE NO.1 : COPY OF THE LOAN CUM HYPOTHECATION AGREEMENT DATED 15.01.2018 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE NO.2 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DULY NOTING THE CHARGE IN FAVOUR OF THE BANK.
ANNEXURE NO.3 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DULY NOTING THE CHARGE IN FAVOUR OF THE BANK.
ANNEXURE NO.4 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.3.
ANNEXURE NO.5 : COPY OF HTE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT REGISTERED AGAINST ANNEXURE NO.4.
State Bank of India Guruvayur Branch
Mr. Arun Aravindan Nair
Circle Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor Temple Police Station
The Station House Officer, Guruvayoor Temple Police Station
The State of Kerala
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
