Partly allowed

Sabu A.A. v. the Authorized Officer

Kerala HC5 Jan 2021WP(C)/135/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner, a loan defaulter, petitioned for a private sale of secured assets and final account closure. citing judicial precedent on SARFAESI limitations, the court quashed restrictions on bank action by granting liberty to approach the bank with a settlement proposal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to approach Bank with appropriate representation; Bank to consider it after hearing petitioner. Liberty also granted to seek restoration of possession of sole residential

Sabu A.A. Vs the Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.135 OF 2021(N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SABU A.A., S/O ANTONY DAVIS, ARAYMKALAPUTHENPARAMBIL, THRIKODITHANAM P.O.CHENGANASSERY.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SMT.DHANUJA M.S

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD, LCRD, KOTTAYAM DIVISION, KOTAYAM-686 001.

¶11

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD, CHANGANACHERRY BRANCH, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶12

SRI. LEO GEORGE - SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 135/21

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who admittedly is the defaulter of a loan facility availed of from the respondent-Bank, has approached this Court with a rather strange request, that the Bank be directed to permit him to sell the secured assets one after the other, so as to obtain a closure of the entire liability in the loan account.

¶18

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.B.Krishna Mani, concedes that his client had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)No.29777/2019, but that he could not comply with the directions therein; and that consequently, the Bank has evicted him from two of the secured assets which are now intended to be put to auction soon. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P1 notice be set aside and the respondent-Bank be directed to

¶19

permit his client to settle the loan

¶20

WPC 135/21

¶21

¶22

liability, as afore prayed for.

¶23

3. In response, Sri.Leo George – learned

¶24

Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank, submitted that this Writ Petition is not maintainable since the petitioner had earlier approached this Court, but refused to comply with the directions therein. He contended vehemently that the present Writ Petition is an abuse of process and that the Bank is fully entitled to sell the property under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity). He added to his submissions by saying that if the petitioner is desirous of securing highest amounts for the secured assets, he is at liberty to have his own nominees to participate in the auction, but that this cannot give him a right - either vested or otherwise - to claim that

¶25

WPC 135/21

¶26

¶27

he should be allowed to sell the property

¶28

through a private sale. He, therefore, prayed

¶29

that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

¶30

4. On hearing the learned Standing

¶31

Counsel as afore, Sri.B.Krishna Mani submitted

¶32

that his client has approached this Court with

¶33

full sincerity and that he is desirous of settling the account at the earliest. He,

¶34

therefore, prayed that his client be, at

¶35

least, given an opportunity of approaching the Bank with a proper proposal, so that he can then arrange for buyers for the property, thus leading to the account being settled without further prejudice to him and other owners of the property.

¶36

5. In reply, Sri.Leo George submitted

¶37

that though there is nothing standing in the way of the petitioner in approaching the Bank

¶38

with a proper proposal, he has not chosen so until now but has approached this Court by

¶39

WPC 135/21

¶40

¶41

urging untenable contentions. He, therefore, submitted that if the petitioner approaches the Bank with a proper proposal, the same will be considered in terms of law; however, prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations in his favour at this stage.

¶42

Taking note of the afore submissions and since the jurisdiction of this Court in interfering with the steps taken by the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act is severely proscribed, going by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784], I order this writ petition to the limited extent of leaving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Bank with an appropriate representation; in which event, the same will be considered by the competent

¶43

WPC 135/21

¶44

¶45

Authority, after affording him an opportunity of being heard.

¶46

After I dictated this part of the judgment, Sri.B.Krishna Mani submitted that

¶47

his client may also be given liberty to seek

¶48

that his brother be put back in possession of

¶49

one of the secured assets, since it is his sole residential abode and further that the

¶50

Bank be directed to consider this also, when his client makes the afore allowed representation.

¶51

Of course, this is a liberty that is

¶52

available to the petitioner and if he chooses to make such a request, the Bank will certainly consider it as per law.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 135/21

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶61

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.10.2018 UNDER SECTION 13(20 OF THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSET AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT ISSUED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 21.2.2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 23.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

Sabu A.A. v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabu A.A. v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivan.P.v Vs the Canara Bank

Changanacherry Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Society LTD.NO.K/364 Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Suresh Kumar K.R. Vs the Authorized Officer

Shine Plast Vs Assistant State Tax Officer

Mohammed Musthafa Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Mohanan K. S. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner