Dismissed

Mr. Zainul Abidheen alias Kunjutty v. the Federal Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC10 Nov 2023WP(C)/19095/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning the non-release of property title documents mortgaged to a bank, the court dismissed the petition as an abuse of process because the bank asserted the loan is a Non Performing Asset with an outstanding decree before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, advising the petitioners to invoke other remedies.

What did the court decide?

Reliefs sought for in the writ petition were not granted; the petition was closed.

Mr. Zainul Abidheen alias Kunjutty Vs the Federal… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 19095 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

1 MR.ZAINUL ABIDHEEN ALIAS KUNJUTTY S/O.MUHAMMED MUSLIYAR, KANNAMANNIL HOUSE, THUTHA P.O, ANAMANGAD, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679357

¶8

2 VEERANKUTTY S/O.YOUSUF, KOLOTHU PARAMBIL, KOPPAM, AMAYUR P O, PATTAMBI (VIA) PALAKKAD, PIN - 679303 BY ADVS. E.A.BIJUMON MEGHA BIJU MALAVIKA MARY THOMAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE FEDERAL BANK LTD. LCRD/ERNAKULAM DIVISION, GROUND FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS, MARINE DRIVE, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PIN - 682031

¶11

2 MR.SHIRAZ S/O.HAMZOO, HOUSE NO. 31, NOORJAHAN, SHENOY ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682017

¶12

3 MRS.SURAYYA SHIRAZ W/O.MR.SHIRAZ, HOUSE NO. 31, NOORJAHAN, SHENOY ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682017

¶13

4 ABDUL KAREEM S/O.KUNJIMUHAMMED, THAZHEPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, CHANDRAPPINNI EAST PO, THRISSUR, PIN - 680687

¶14

5 A.K.HUSSANKUTTY S/O.POCKERHAJI, ARANHIKKAI HOUSE, THAZHEKODE WEST PO (VIA), PERINTHALMMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322 BY ADVS. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE MOHAMMED SIYAD M F PREMCHAND M M LEO GEORGE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 19095 OF 2023 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioners allege that though a loan liability availed of by respondents 2 and 3, which they had secured as guarantors, has been closed, the title documents of their properties - which they had deposited with the 1^st respondent – Bank, to create an equitable mortgage - is not being released to them.

¶19

Sri.Bijumon E.A. - learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that, when the loan liability has been closed by the borrowers, namely respondents 2 and 3, 1^st respondent – Bank does not obtain any competence to hold on the title documents of his clients; and pointed out that, in spite of Exts.P2 to P4 requests for such purpose made by them, the latter has refused even to answer it. He, therefore, prayed that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted.

¶20

However, Sri.Leo George – learned counsel for the 1^st respondent – Bank, submitted that petitioners have approached this Court under a misdirection because, the loan liability, far from being settled, is now a Non Performing Asset, with an outstanding sum of Rs.1,28,80,309/- as in August, 2019. He further explained that the Bank has, in fact, filed O.A .No.433 of 2019 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam and has obtained an Award on 01.08.2023; in which, the petitioners herein are also parties. He submitted that, therefore, this writ petition is an abuse of

¶21

WP(C) NO. 19095 OF 2023 3

¶22

the processes of law.

¶23

Sri.Mohammed Siyad – learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, did not answer the afore controversy; but sought time for his clients to respond.

¶24

I am afraid that it would not be necessary for this Court to keep this writ petition pending because of the afore submissions made by Sri.Leo George. This is because, when the Bank says it has already obtained an Award/Decree against the petitioners and the party respondents, it is for them to invoke other remedies as available to them in law, particularly because it is asserted by the former that they were parties to the said proceedings.

¶25

In the afore circumstances, I close this writ petition; however, leaving liberty to the petitioners to approach the 1^st respondent - Bank for necessary information; and if this is done, same shall be made available to them as per law without any avoidable delay.

¶26

Needless to say, every liberty of the petitioners, with respect to their

¶27

claims - both against the Bank and the principal borrowers, are left open.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶30

MC/10.11

¶31

WP(C) NO. 19095 OF 2023 4

¶32

¶33

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 13(2) NOTICE DATED
22.07.2019.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 10.10.2022 ISSUED
BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.12.2022
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04.05.2023
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

Mr. Zainul Abidheen alias Kunjutty v. the Federal Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Zainul Abidheen alias Kunjutty v. the Federal Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala

Rashida Jabbar Vs Verbster India Surgicals Pvt. Ltd.

Xxxx Vs Yyy

Joobin. K Vs State of Kerala

Raiju K. Y Vs State of Kerala

Vallikutty Vs Appellate Tribunal and District Magistrate, Palakkad