Disposed

Muthanat Sini Alias Sini.T.M v. the Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank

Kerala HC2 May 2023OP(C)/996/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner objected to SARFAESI proceedings against unmortgaged land. Court clarified that only mortgaged portions (66.34 Ares and 1.73 Ares) are proceedable. OP disposed; underlying suit proceeds untrammelled.

What did the court decide?

Clarified that SARFAESI proceedings proceed only against mortgaged land; un-mortgaged land excluded unless part of mortgaged area.

Muthanat Sini Alias Sini.T.M Vs the Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank — Kerala HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MAY 2023 / 12TH VAISAKHA, 1945

¶5

OP(C) NO.996 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOS 119/2023 OF MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MUTHANAT SINI ALIAS SINI.T.M
AGED 50 YEARS

¶9

W/O SUNNY, AGED 50 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, MUTHANAT HOUSE,
KOTTIYOOR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. KOTTIYOOR, IRITTY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670651
BY ADV R.SURENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, THALAP, KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002

¶12

2K.M.ANIL
ADVOCATE (ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN C.M.P. 5072/2022 OF
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY),
P.O. THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101

¶13

3MUTHANAT SUNNY
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O MATHAI, AGED 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,
MUTHANAT HOUSE, KOTTIYOOR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.
KOTTIYOOR, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670651
4THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., PERAVOOR BRANCH,
MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM, P.O. PERAVOOR,
IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670673
SRI.SUNIL SANKER
SMT.G.SHEEBA, GP

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.05.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP(C) NO.996 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 2^nd day of May, 2023

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank.

¶20

The short grievance espoused by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the land having an extent of 49 Ares and another 30 Square Meters, which has not been mortgaged to the respondent-Bank is also sought to be proceeded against under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred as ‘SARFAESI Act’) vide Ext.P8 order. The learned counsel would make this submission based on the boundaries shown in Ext.P7 petition filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The learned counsel would also clarify that the petitioner has no grievance in proceeding against the secured assets, which have been mortgaged with the respondent-Bank.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank would contend that the

¶22

petitioner has got an effective remedy under Section 17 of the

¶23

OP(C) NO.996 OF 2023

¶24

¶25

SARFAESI Act. Besides, as per the instructions received by the learned counsel, the said 49 Ares and 30 Square Meters also form part of the mortgaged property.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court would clarify that all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 shall only be in respect of 66.34 Ares of land and 1.73 Ares of land made mention of in paragraph No.5.1 of Ext.P8 order. The above referred 49 Ares and 30 Square Meters shall not be proceeded against in furtherance of Ext.P8, unless it forms part of 66.34 Ares and 1.73 Ares afore referred, which have been admittedly mortgaged with the respondent-Bank.

¶27

With this clarification, this OP(C) will stand disposed of. The suit, O.S. No.119/2023, will proceed untrammelled by any of the observations made in this case.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶30

NP

¶31

OP(C) NO.996 OF 2023

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 996/2023

¶34

`PETITIONER’S` `Exhibit-P1`	`EXHIBITS` `A TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.119 OF 2023 ON T` `KUTHUPARAMBA`	`PLAINT DATED 1-3-2023 IN O.S` `HE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT,`
`Exhibit-P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `EXECUTED BY MATHAYI` `3274 OF 2007 OF PER` `FAVOUR OF THE THIRD`	`SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 20-8-2007` `AND REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.` `AVOOR SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE IN` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit-P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `EXECUTED BY MATHAYI` `3275 OF 2007 OF PER` `FAVOUR OF THE THIRD`	`SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 20-8-2007` `AND REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.` `AVOOR SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE IN` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit-P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `REGISTERED AS DOCUM` `SUB REGISTRAR'S OFF`	`SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 18-6-2013` `ENT NO.2040/2013 OF PERAVOOR` `ICE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit-P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `REGISTERED AS DOCUM` `SUB REGISTRAR'S OFF`	`SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 9-7-2013` `ENT NO.2238/2013 OF PERAVOOR` `ICE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit-P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `BY THE FIRST RESPON` `SARFAESI ACT`	`NOTICE DATED 25-11-2021 ISSUED` `DENT UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE`
`Exhibit-P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `BY THE FIRST RESPON` `MAGISTRATE COURT, T` `2022`	`PETITION DATED 4-11-2022 FILED` `DENT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL` `HALASSERY AS CMP NO.5072 OF`
`Exhibit-P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.5072 OF 2022 ISS` `MAGISTRATE COURT, T`	`ORDER DATED 30-12-2022 IN CMP` `UED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL` `HALASSERY`
`Exhibit-P9`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE SECOND RESPONDE`	`NOTICE DATED 7-2-2023 ISSUED BY` `NT`
`Exhibit-P10`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE APPLICATION I.A` `2023 ON THE FILE OF`	`AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF` `NO.2 OF 2023 IN O.S NO.119 OF` `MUNSIFF'S COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA`
`Exhibit-P11` `RESPONDENTS’`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE APPLICATION I.A` `2023 ON THE FILE OF` `EXHIBITS: NIL`	`AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF` `NO.3 OF 2023 IN O.S NO.119 OF` `MUNSIFF'S COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA`

Muthanat Sini Alias Sini.T.M v. the Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthanat Sini Alias Sini.T.M v. the Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manmadhan Nair Vs Padmavathy Amma

State Bank of Travancore, Tripunithura Vs Rekha Paul

Varghese Vs Saji Thomas

Renjith Gopan Vs State of Kerala

Zeenath Vs 1. the Superintendent

Ratheesh Vs the State of Kerala