Dismissed

Bhaskaran v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC24 Jan 2020WA/1308/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ appeal filed against the closure of a writ petition in a SARFAESI case. The lower court had closed the petition with liberty to approach the statutory forum. The appellant challenged the closure and lack of bank statement. The court held prayers were omnibus and no error was found in the impugned judgment.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed holding that the prayers were omnibus and not maintainable without specific action by the respondent bank.

Bhaskaran Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.1308 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.3.2019 IN WP(C) NO.13721/2017(M) OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶10

BHASKARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. THANKAYYAN NADAR, B.K. BHAVAN, OORALIVILA, ERICHALLOOR, PLAMUTTAKADA P.O, KARODE VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI SRI.VINOD RAJKUMAR SRI.P.SANKARAN NAMPOOTHIRI SRI.P.REJINARK SRI.NARAYANAN P POTTY

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695023.

¶14

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., EVENING BRANCH(UCHAKKADA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695023.

¶15

3 THE GENERAL MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695023.

¶16

BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. CO-OP. BANK

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.1308 of 2019

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24^th day of January, 2020

¶22

S.Manikumar, CJ.

¶23

Instant writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 13.03.2019 in W.P.(C) No.13721 of 2017, by which writ court closed the writ petition reserving liberty to the writ petitioner/appellant to approach the alternative statutory forum with all his contentions, subject to the laws and prescriptions in the limitation.

¶24

Short facts leading to the appeal are as under:

¶25

Appellant availed a consumption loan from Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Uchakkada Branch, in the year 2012. An amount of Rs.5 lakhs was disbursed to him by the bank. He defaulted and consequently, the bank issued notice dated 22.01.2014 to the appellant under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 demanding a sum of Rs.8,77,049/- within ten days. Thereafter, the bank issued notices dated 21.02.2014 and 15.03.2016 under Section 13(4) of the Act. In the later notice, which is dated 15.03.2016, it is stated that the bank has decided to take possession of the security property.

¶26

Aggrieved by the abovesaid notices, appellant has approached

¶27

W.A.No.1308 of 2019

¶28

¶29

the writ court by filing W.P.(C) No.14977 of 2016. Writ court by judgment dated 15.04.2016 (Exhibit-P4) disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd., to inform the petitioner/appellant the up-to-date installments due and the petitioner shall pay the outstanding dues in six equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be payable on or before 19.04.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant is at liberty to approach the respondent Bank by filing a suitable representation seeking to regularise the loan, in which event the same shall be considered by the bank and take a decision on merits within a period of one month thereafter. It was also ordered that proceedings pursuant to notice dated 15.03.2016 issued by the bank shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken accordingly.

¶30

The appellant thereafter, filed W.P(C) No.13721 of 2017 for the following reliefs:

¶31

(a)To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to quash the proceedings of the respondents in the above loan.

¶32

(b)To issue appropriate direction to the respondent that further recovery proceedings in the above loan transaction by the respondent under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI), Act, 2002 is ultra vires and illegal.

¶33

W.A.No.1308 of 2019

¶34

¶35

(c)To pass an order directing the respondents to furnish a statement of account to the petitioner and to quantify the amount, if any, due.”

¶36

Writ court by judgment 13.03.2019 closed the writ petition. Said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

¶37

“The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client has instructed him to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to approach the alternative statutory Forum.

¶38

In the afore circumstances, acceding to the above request, I close this writ petition as having been withdrawn, reserving full liberty to the petitioner to approach the alternative statutory Forum with all his contentions, subject to the laws and prescriptions in the limitation.”

¶39

Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed on the grounds, inter alia, that even though a judgment was passed by this Court with liberty to approach alternative forums, nothing was shown to overcome the long delay. Appellant further contended that when he approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, it was not ready to accept his case on file. Appellant further contended that though he has paid an installment as per ExhibitP4 judgment dated 15.04.2016 in W.P.(C) No.14977 of 2016, the respondents have not issued any statement till now.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶41

W.A.No.1308 of 2019

¶42

¶43

Material on record discloses that the appellant has already approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.14977 of 2016 and the writ court by judgment dated 15.04.2016 (Exhibit-P4) granted him time to pay the outstanding dues in six equal monthly installments, the first of which was to be paid on or before 19.04.2016. Thereafter, he approached this Court again by filing the instant writ petition, seeking to quash the entire proceedings issued against him and this Court by judgment dated 13.03.2019 closed the writ petition, as extracted above.

¶44

The prayers sought for in the instant writ petition are omnibus prayers and cannot be granted. If there is any further action by the respondent bank, it is always open to the appellant to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

¶45

We find no error in the judgment impugned and, therefore, this writ appeal is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

Sd/SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶49

Krj.26/1

¶50

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Bhaskaran v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskaran v. the Authorised Officer

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

P.J.Antony Vs Peter.D.F

P.J.Antony Vs the Addl. Thahasildar

Johny Thomas Vs the Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank

Cochin International Airport Ltd. Vs P.S.Abdul Salam

George Mathew Vs T.a.M.Pookkoya Thangal

Cochin International Airport Ltd. Vs M.N.Sugunan