Partly allowed

Babykutty.M v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Aug 2023WP(C)/25209/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the attachment of petitioner's leased property by respondents under the BUDS Act, 2019. The Court directed the Competent Authority to consider the petitioner's petition promptly to remove attachment and return possession, adhering to the Act and prior government orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P4 and remove attachment/return possession under Secs. 14 and 15 of BUDS Act, 2019 within three months.

Babykutty.M Vs State of Kerala — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 25209 OF 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶7

WP(C) NO. 25209 OF 2023

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

BABYKUTTY.M AGED 60 YEARS S/O SRI MATHAI, RESIDING AT ARUN NIVAS, KIZAKKEKARA, VILAKKUDI VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, ELAMPAL P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691322

¶10

BY ADVS. NIRMAL V NAIR LIJO VARGHESE ENCIL K. SABU ARATHI PRABHAKARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶13

2 COMPETENT AUTHORITY, (UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT, 2019) SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶14

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691013

¶15

4 M/S SAAN POPULAR FINANCE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 3/1831/6(B), 3RD FLOOR HRIDYAM ARCADE, ASWANI JUNCTION, THRISSUR

¶16

WP(C) NO. 25209 OF 2023

¶17

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 680022

¶19

BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA K.R.RANJITH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH STATE ATTORNEY()

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 25209 OF 2023

¶22

¶23

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶24

W.P.(C.) No. 25209 of 2023

¶25

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2023

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

¶28

“(i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 2 and 3 to act upon Exhibit P4 and Exhibit P5 petitions and to ensure that the attachment over the building room bearing no. PMC XXXIII/206 (old no. X/194) of Punalur Municipality of the petitioner is removed and the possession of the building is returned to the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court;

¶29

ii. To dispense with the English Translation of vernacular documents;

¶30

iii. Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the court may deem fit to grant and

¶31

iv. Grant the cost of the writ petition.” [SIC]

¶32

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 3^rd respondent whereby the petitioner's property is attached as part of the investigation regarding the embezzlement conducted by

¶33

WP(C) NO. 25209 OF 2023 4

¶34

the 4^th respondent by defrauding the creditors and investors of the said financial establishment. It is the case of the petitioner that even after completion of the investigation, the 3^rd respondent has not lifted the attachment over the petitioner's premises and returned the building room which was only leased out to the 4^th respondent for running their business. Hence, this writ petition.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. No notice is necessary to the 4^th respondent at this stage. If the 4^th respondent is aggrieved by the directions of this Court, the 4^th respondent is free to file a review petition before this Court.

¶36

After hearing both sides and also after going through Ext.P3 similar order, I think there can be a direction to the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner. The Government Pleader made available an order No. SC3/86/2022/Home dated 27.12.2022 by which certain directions are issued regarding the release of rented premises. In the light of the above communication, there can be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P4.

¶37

WP(C) NO. 25209 OF 2023 5

¶38

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the

¶39

following directions :

¶40

The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P4 strictly in accordance with Secs.14 and 15 of the BUDS Act, 2019, in the light of the communication No.SC3/86/2022/Home dated 27.12.2022 of

¶41

the Home Department, Government of Kerala as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

SKS

¶46

WP(C) NO. 25209 OF 2023

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25209/2023

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO. 3520/2008 DATED 27-08-2008 OF THE PUNALUR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 29-12-2017 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C). NO. 29681/2022 DATED 12-1-2023 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25-07- 2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25-07- 2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL TRACKING STATUS DATED 31-7-2023 OF EXHIBIT P4
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL TRACKING STATUS DATED 31-7-2023 OF EXHIBIT P5

Babykutty.M v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babykutty.M v. State of Kerala

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

Shijith Kozhiparambil Kunhi Velayudhan Vs Union of India

Majeed Koshi Vs the State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary to Health and Family Welfare Department

Muhammed Ali P Vs State of Kerala

John Paulose Vs State of Kerala

Jayan Vs the State of Kerala

Vidhyadhran Vs State of Kerala