SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Ker) 180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P.CHALY, JJ.
N.V.Anilkumar, S/o. Late N. Venugopalan – Appellant
Versus
The Authorized Officer, Chief Manager, State Bank of India – Respondent
WA.No.368 of 2020
Decided on : 28-02-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For the Respondent: SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE, SC

Important points:
The High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions-While dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person.

Headnote:

The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002- the High Court restrained further proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act. Upon a detailed consideration of the statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act, availability of remedy to the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Tribunal and the appellate remedy under Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal, object and purpose of the legislation, Honourable Apex Court observed that a writ petition ought not to be entertained in view of the alternate statutory remedy available.

Statement of facts:

Challenge in this writ appeal is to the correctness of judgment in W.P.(C) No.4858 of 2020 dated 20.02.2020, by which the writ court declined to quash Exts.P3 to P5 and the proceedings issued The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002;

Finding of the court:

He was unable to pay the court fee prescribed under Rule 13 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 hence constrained to file writ petition -The appellant is not in a position to pay court fee, writ petition cannot be said to be an alternative remedy. Payment of fee for the applications under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act, as framed under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, is mandatory. Such contention cannot be countenanced.

Result: Writ Appeal Dismissed

JUDGMENT :

S.Manikumar, J.

Challenge in this writ appeal is to the correctness of judgment in W.P.(C) No.4858 of 2020 dated 20.02.2020, by which the writ court declined to quash Exts.P3 to P5 and the proceedings issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Exts.P3, P4 and P5 notices are extracted hereunder:

 “State Bank of India

 

 

Resmec, Kottarakkara Branch

Ref.No.2

Date.30.07.2019

NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTION UNDER SARFAESI ACT 2002

Ordinary/Registered AD

To

• (Borrower) • (Guarantor)

Sri.Anil Kumar N.V.

Nambadiazhikathu Veedu

Pidavorr P.O.,

Pathanapuram – 691625

Kollam

Phn: 9847831966

Dear Sir,

Borrower/Unit's Name Mr.Anil Kumar N.V.

Loan Account No(s) 67351721888

Purpose Contractor

Limit Rs.40,00,000/-

Outstanding(s) Rs.40,90,530/-

INTIMATION OF ACTION PROPOSED UNDER SARFAESI ACT 2002/REVENUE RECOVERY

At your request, you No.1 above had been granted credit facility/ies by way of financial assistance to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-on 03/02/2016 as facility/working capital facility/Term Loan facility for the purpose of running business (business/purchase of machinery/working capital/Housing Loan/Mortgage Loan etc.) against which the documents had been executed by you. No.2 of you as guarantor had guaranteed the credit facility granted to the No.1 of you above.

(2) You have availed the financial assistance with an undertaking for dues repayment of the said financial assistance along with interest, in terms of the said agreement(s)/document(s).

(3) For the purposes of securing the facilities you No.1/No.2 have also created mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds/Registered mortgages creating security interest in favor of the Bank in respect of the following property(ies) mentioned below:

(4) Though you had undertaken to repay the said financial assistance in terms of the documents executed by you, you had failed to make payments as agreed by you. On the contrary, the operation and the conduct of the above said financial assistance had become irregular and you are liable to pay an amount of Rs.40,90,530/-to regularize the account(s).

(5) You are hereby called upon to regularize the account(s) on or before 15.08.2019. If you fall to regularize the account, the bank will initiate action U/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI ACT/REVENEU RECOVERY, and also initiate all or any of the rights detailed under sub-Section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI ACT/REVENEU RECOVERY and under other applicable provisions of SARFAESI ACT/REVENEU RECOVERY.

Yours faithfully,

For State Bank of India

Sd/-

CHIEF MANAGER”

***************

“State Bank of India

RASMEC KOTTARAKARA

[Rule – 8(1)]

POSSESSION NOTICE

(for immovable property)

Whereas, the undersigned being the Authorised Officer of the State Bank of India under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 and in exercise of powers conferred under section 13(12) read with Rule 3 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, issued a Demand Notice dated 03.08.2019 calling upon the borrower Sri.Anilkumar N.V. (S/o Venugopalan), residing at Nambadiazhikathu Veedu, Pidavoor PO, Pathanapuram, Kollam District, PIN 689695 to repay the amount mentioned in the notice being Rs.41,71,585/-and interest from 03.08.2019, (Rupees forty one lakhs seventy one thousand five hundred and eighty five only) within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

The borrower having failed to repay the amount, notice is hereby given to the Borrower/Guarantor and the public in general that the undersigned has taken possession of the property described herein below in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 13(4) of the said Act read with Rule 8 of the said rules on this 06th November, 2019.

The Borrower/Guarantor in particular and the public in general are hereby cautioned no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top