P.M. Mumtaz v. The Authorised Officer, Allahabad Bank
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/10TH MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).NO. 974 OF 2015 (V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
----------------
1. MRS. P.M. MUMTAZ, AGED 65 YEARS W/O.GAFFUR, XI-1329 MULLAPARAMBIL, ODATHAVELI FORTKOCHI.
2. MR.MANOJ ALUMMOTIL ABDUL, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.GAFFUR, XI-1329 MULLAPARAMBIL, ODATHAVELI FORTKOCHI.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER ALLAHABAD BANK, SABU & CYPRIAN BUILDING R.MADHAVAN NAIR BUILDINGS, OPP.DOLPHIN CLUB ERNAKULAM-682016.
2. ALLAHABAD BANK KOCHI BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER PALACE ROAD, KOCHI-682002.
R1 BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.974 OF 2015 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed challenging the steps taken by the respondent bank to recover loan amounts that are outstanding from the petitioners. When the case was called up today, it is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that, although there was an interim direction not to confirm the sale, stated to have been conducted by the respondents, till today, the sale had already been confirmed by the respondents on 29.12.2014, well before the date of the interim order passed by this Court. Taking note of the said submission, I feel that the remedy of the petitioner would be to impugn the sale in appropriate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Thus, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies against the confirmed sale, in terms of the SARFAESI Act, the present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns