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

2024 Supreme(Ker) 335

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J.
M/s. Universal Agencies, Represented By Its Managing Partner Madhukant R. Shah, S/o. Ratilal Doongersi Shah and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Bank of India, Represented By The Chief Manager and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 6557 of 2017, WP(C) No. 16718 of 2016
Decided On : 21-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: G. Hariharan, Praveen H., K.S. Smitha, V.R. Sanjeev Kumar, B.R. Sindu.
For the Respondents: Thushara James, Sr. Govt. Pleader, P.B. Krishnan (Sr.), Sabu George, Latha Anand, S. Easwaran, SC, SBI, P. Sankarankutty Nair, SC, ESI Corpn., S. Ambily, A.K. Preetha, K.K. Chandran Pillai (Sr.), Neelakandan P.M., P.B. Subramanyan,
Manu Vyasan Peter.

IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of 'vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt' was applied, emphasizing that the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who are indolent.

Headnote:

Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt - Writ Petitions - Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 - Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitions are connected to the sale of properties in auction proceedings before the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioners sought relief based on alleged fraud and irregularities in the sale proceedings, delay in challenging the sale, and statutory liabilities.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were not entitled to relief as they failed to challenge the sale within a reasonable time, and the delay and laches were fatal to the grant of relief. The court also rejected the application of Section 14 and Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the petitioners were aware of the sale proceedings and failed to establish fraud or mistake.

Issues: Delay in challenging the sale, application of Section 14 and Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, alleged fraud and irregularities in the sale proceedings, and statutory liabilities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' delay in approaching the court and their awareness of the sale proceedings barred them from relief. The court also found that the petitioners failed to establish fraud or mistake, and the sale was conducted in accordance with the law.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the judgment clarified that it did not decide any issue regarding statutory liabilities or the legality of actions by the State or statutory authorities.

JUDGMENT :

Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt (the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who are indolent). If there is a case that calls upon this Court to apply the principle contained in the above maxim, this is it.

2. These writ petitions are intrinsically connected with each other and essentially relate to the same subject matter. Therefore, they can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment. W.P(C.) No.16718 of 2016 is filed praying inter alia for a direction to the State and Revenue officials, namely respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 in that writ petition not to effect mutation with regard to 1.70 acres of land in Sy.Nos.848/1A/1/1, 848/1D, 847/6A and 847/6B in Mullackal Village and another 35.073 cents in Sy.Nos.515/7A/2 and 515/6B/2 of Alappuzha West Village in Ambalapuzha Taluk of Alappuzha District, in the name of respondents 5, 6, 9, 10, 13 (13th respondent has subsequently been deleted from the array of parties) or anybody claiming under them. W.P.(C.) No.6557 of 2017 has been filed challenging Ext.P16 order dated 07.10.2002 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.No.115/2002 and also seeking to quash the sale proclamation in D.R.C No.1036/SBI/ALP in O.A.No.115/2002 and to set aside the sale conducted by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 18.03.2004 and 30.09.2004, in respect of the properties covered by Exts.P2 and P3 documents. The learned Counsel appearing for various parties agrees that W.P.(C.) No.6557 of 2017 may be taken as the lead case. Therefore, exhibits and the parties referred to in this judgment are as they are marked in W.P.(C.) No.6557 of 2017, unless specifically indicated to be otherwise.

3. The 1st petitioner is a partnership firm. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are its present partners. Going by the pleadings in the writ petition, the firm was originally constituted through a deed of partnership dated 01.04.1992 by three persons together with the 3rd petitioner, who is the wife of the 2nd petitioner. It is stated that on 01.02.1997, the three other partners, except the 3rd petitioner, retired from the partnership and the 2nd petitioner was inducted into the partnership. The 2nd petitioner obtained 170 cents of land in Sy.Nos.848/1A/1/1, 848/1D, 847/6A and 847/6B in Mullackal Village of Ambalapuzha Taluk of Alappuzha District under a family partition deed, which is on record as Ext.P2 dated 17.02.1997. The 2nd petitioner also purchased another item of property having an extent of 35.73 cents of land in Sy.Nos.515/7A/2 and 515/6B/2 of Alappuzha West Village in Ambalapuzha Taluk of Alappuzha District by Ext.P3 document dated 18.02.1997. The properties covered by Exts.P2 and P3 documents were mortgaged with the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Beach Road, Alappuzha to avail credit facilities for the business of the partnership firm. On default being committed, the bank initiated proceedings under the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993, (earlier known as ‘the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993’) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam by filing O.A.No.115/2002. Through Ext.P16 order dated 07.10.2002, the Original Application was allowed and the State Bank of India was permitted to recover a total amount of Rs.1,36,73,307/- (Rupees one crore thirty six lakhs seventy three thousand three hundred seven only) together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of Original Application till realization. Following the issuance of a recovery certificate, the properties were notified for sale by the Recovery Officer in D.R.C. No.1036/SBI/ALP in O.A.No.115/2002. The property covered by Ext.P3 document was sold in an auction on 18.03.2004 and the property covered by Ext.P2 document was sold in an auction on 30.09.2004. Since there were no applications for setting aside the sale conducted in terms of the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, the sale conducted in respect of both i

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