Sukumaran.P.A v. The Canara Bank
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/19TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 9987 of 2015 (W) --------------------------- PETITIONER :
------------------ SUKUMARAN.P.A., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, PANGICHANPURA, VALIYAKADU, ANAKKAL PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 652.
BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENTS :
----------------------
1. THE CANARA BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, MALAMPUZHA BRANCH, MALAMPUZHA PO, PALAKKAD - 678 651.
2. THE MANAGER, THE CANARA BANK MALAMPUZHA BRANCH, MALAMPUZHA PO, PALAKKAD - 678 651. R1 & R2 BY SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN,SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 9987 of 2015 (W) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1:
TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS . 3 LAKHS P2:
TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.319/2014 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALAKKAD.
P3:
TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT PREFERRED IN O.S.NO.319/2014. P4:
TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(4) R/W RULE 8(1) OF THE SECURITY INTEREST ENFORCEMENT RULES, 2002 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
NIL.
--------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
................................................. ............................................... Dated this the 9th day of April, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who had availed of a loan from the respondent Bank and defaulted in re-payment of the same, is aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act', for recovery of the loan amount. The main ground of challenge in the writ petition against the action of the respondent Bank is that the respondent Bank has already instituted a suit as O.S.No.319 of 2014 before the Munsiff Court, Palakkad for recovery of the same amounts.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner, therefore, that in the light of the fact that the 2nd respondent has already instituted a suit against the petitioner, the action taken under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act cannot be justified.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank would refer to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Azeez v. Punjab National Bank [2005 KHC 41] wherein, it was held that, there could be no illegality in the Bank taking recourse to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act even though civil suits are
pending between the parties. I find that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Accordingly, following the said judgment, I dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merit. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE AMV/09/04/