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

2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5002

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
GOPINATH P, J
UNNIKRISHNAN.T. – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) 38361/2022



Advocates:
VINOD MADHAVAN, M.V. BOSE DEVI, P. RE

A guarantor’s right to occupy mortgaged property is subject to unconditional surrender upon notice after the property is sold.

Headnote:

Guarantor - Loan Default - Contempt of Courts Act - Summary: The court analyzed the legal obligations of a guarantor concerning loan defaults and possession of secured assets under relevant laws. It ruled that the petitioner may retain possession until sale, contingent upon unconditional surrender upon notice.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a guarantor for his brother's loan from a bank, sought to retain possession of mortgaged property until its sale after the loan defaulted. The asset was assigned to an Asset Reconstruction Company.

Finding of the Court:

The court acknowledged the petitioner's request to remain in occupation until the asset’s sale but mandated that he must vacate upon the respondent's request after the sale.

Issues: Whether the petitioner could remain in occupation of the secured asset until its sale and under what conditions surrender of possession must occur.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner could stay in occupancy until the sale, provided he surrendered possession unconditionally when requested, reinforcing the necessity of adhering to prior commitments regarding vacating the premises.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to continue in occupation until asset sale and to surrender possession unconditionally upon request.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the guarantor in respect of a loan availed by his brother from the South Indian Bank Limited. On the loan account turning into a Non Performing Asset, the portfolio was assigned to the respondent-Asset Reconstruction Company, on 17.03.2017. Petitioner has also mortgaged his property for the purpose of securing repayment of the loan.

2. When this matter is taken up for consideration today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired defence personnel and the only relief now sought for is for a direction to the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue in occupation of the premises in question till the same is brought to sale by the respondent. It is submitted with reference to the affidavit dated 01.01.2023 that, on the sale being confirmed and on intimation from the respondent, the petitioner will hand over vacant possession to the authorised officer of the respondent.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that if the petitioner were to unconditionally surrender vacant possession of the secured asset on the sale being confirmed, the respondent has no objection in permitting the petitioner to continue in occupation of the premises. It is submitted that the surrender must be unconditional and immediately on the request made by the authorised officer of the respondent bank. The learned counsel also pointed out that despite an earlier undertaking to vacate the premises by 15.12.2021, the petitioner did not do so.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and having regard to the contents of the affidavit dated 01.01.2023, it is directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to continue in occupation of the secured asset till the asset is sold in auction. The petitioner shall hand over vacant possession of the secured asset immediately on a request being made by the authorised officer of the respondent, after the property has been sold. It is made clear that the surrender shall be unconditional and the petitioner will not be granted any further time to vacate the premises. If the petitioner fails to hand over possession as undertaken, it will be open to the respondent to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act in addition to any other remedy that may be available to them. It will also be open to the respondent to bring to the notice of intending bidders the terms of this judgment. The petitioner shall also not obstruct or hinder the inspection of property by any intending bidders.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

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