Disposed

Muthoot Housing Finance Company Limited v. Rameshkumar. B

Kerala HC4 Mar 2021OP(Crl.)/65/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed the petitioner's complaint regarding delay in disposal of an application under Section 14(2) of the SARFAESI Act concerning forcible possession. The court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the matter within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha to dispose of C.M.P.No.2287 of 2019 in M.C.No.56 of 2018 within two months.

Muthoot Housing Finance Company Limited Vs Rameshkumar. B — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

OP(Crl.).No.65 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 56/2018 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

MUTHOOT HOUSING FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED T.C.NO.14/2074/7, MUTHOOT CENTER, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034, HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, ARUN CHANDRE, S/O. PRATHAPA CHANDRAN S.T., AGED 27 YEARS.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 RAMESHKUMAR. B MURIKKOLIL 8, MANNAR, MANNAR S.O., 689 622.

¶12

2 LALITHAKUMARI W/O. RAMESH KUMAR B., MURIKKOLIL 8, MANNAR, MANNAR S.O., 689 622.

¶13

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP(Crl.).No.65 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2021

¶18

The petitioner Company is a financial institution as defined

¶19

under Section 2(1)(m) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The respondents, after availing a housing loan from the petitioner, defaulted in repayment, resulting in proceedings under Section 14 of the Act, for attachment and sale of the secured asset, being initiated. Accordingly, the jurisdictional Magistrate appointed an Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The warrant was executed on 14.02.2019 and possession handed over to the petitioner. Thereafter, on the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the petition under Section 14 was closed. The respondents are alleged to have trespassed into the secured asset and to have takes forcible possession of the property thereafter. Faced with such situation, the petitioner approached the jurisdictional Magistrate court again and filed Ext.P3 petition under Section 14(2) of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the delay in passing orders on the petition.

¶20

In the report called for, the learned Magistrate has stated that since the respondents did not enter appearance in

¶21

OP(Crl.).No.65 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

the petition despite service of notice, the petition was allowed on 30.10.2019. It is reported that, despite the order, possession could not be restored due to pandemic related issues and the petition stands adjourned to 16.04.2021. It is assured that the matter will be disposed of within two months of the next posting date.

¶24

In view of the limited relief being granted, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶25

In the light of the report, the original petition is disposed of, directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha to dispose C.M.P.No.2287 of 2019 in M.C.No.56 of 2018 within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶26

Sd/- V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶27

¶28

OP(Crl.).No.65 OF 2021

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶32

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 7.3.2019 IN MC NO.56/2018 ON THE FILE OF CJM COURT, ALAPPUZHA. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 27.4.2019 ISSUED BY THE MANNAR POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF CMP NO.2287/2019 FILED BEFORE CJM COURT, ALAPPUZHA.

Muthoot Housing Finance Company Limited v. Rameshkumar. B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthoot Housing Finance Company Limited v. Rameshkumar. B

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

Sravan Satyan, Vs Simi Sravan Satyan

Kavitha N.P., Vs Raju

Ajmal Vs the State of Kerala

Sankaranarayanan Vs State of Kerala

Sudeep, Vs State of Kerala

Antony P.T. Vs Raman