Petitioner, mother of the loanee, sought adjournment of asset sale under SARFAESI Act. Court rejected petition citing Supreme Court precedent barring non-borrower intervention and noting non-compliance with interim order to deposit dues.
Adjournment of sale of immovable properties under SARFAESI Act was rejected.
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 A.M.BADAR
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.6757 OF 2020(T)
PETITIONER:
LAKSHMIKUTTY
AGED 81 YEARS W/O. P.A.UNNI, PALLIYAMAKKAL HOSUE, 6/265, KANJANI ROAD, CHETTUPUZHA, MANAKKODI, THRISSUR, PIN-680 012.
BY ADVS. SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA SRI.A.P.VASAVAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 CANARA BANK LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, EAST FORT BRANCH, EAST FORT P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680 005.
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND DIVISIONAL MANAGER M/S. CANARA BANK LTD., EAST FORT BRANCH, EAST FORT P.O., THRISSUR, IN-680 005.
R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.M.J.RAJASREE R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.ANIRUDH KADAVIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.6757 OF 2020(T)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of February 2021
Heard both sides.
mother of the loanee.
Act came to be issued, as per provisions of Section 13(4) of the
WP(C).No.6757 OF 2020(T)
3
SARFAESI Act as well as under the Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002. The petitioner is challenging the said action with the prayer to adjourn the sale of immovable properties mentioned in the notice of sale issued under the SARFAESI Act for a period of six months. The petition is pending before this Court from March 2020. Period of six months as prayed by the petitioner is granted with passage of time and in the light of the order dated 09.03.2020.
WP(C).No.6757 OF 2020(T)
4
Mathew K.C ((2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 85)(DB). Moreover
the time of six months as sought in the prayer clause of this petition is already over.
In the result, the petition fails and the same is rejected.
Sd/-
A.M.BADAR
Nsd //true copy// PA to Judge
JUDGE
WP(C).No.6757 OF 2020(T)
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT | P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DR.RAKESH JACOB CH HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM 29.2.2020. |
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ERIAN, CARDINAL SPECIALTY DISTRICT DATED |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT | P1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE DR. DANNY VINCENT, DATED 2.3.2020. |
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SACRED HEART HOSPITAL |
| EXHIBIT | P1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE DR.SURYAJITH M. |
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY |
| EXHIBIT | P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE 3.2.2020. |
SALE NOTICE DATED |
| EXHIBIT | P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.2.2 |
COVERING LETTER TO SALE 020. |
| EXHIBIT | P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE 28.2.2020. |
REPRESENTATION DATED |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is maintainable filed by a mother of the loanee challenging enforcement action under SARFAESI Act without being a borrower or guarantor.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another vs. Mathew K.CFollowed¶31
Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another vs. Mathew K.C ((2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 85)(DB)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Lakshmi Kutty
Canara Bank Ltd and Another
A.M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
