Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17429
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
KOCHURANI ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
AUTHORISED OFFICER – Respondent
OP (DRT)/8/2021
M.RETHEESHKUMAR, SAJU N.A., G.LEKHA
The court established that the completion of a sale under the SARFAESI Act negates the necessity for further judicial intervention in pending applications.
Headnote:
Securitisation - Application - SARFAESI Act Section 13 - The court affirmed the validity of a sale conducted under the SARFAESI Act, highlighting that a completed sale renders other pending applications moot, reinforcing the principle that legal remedies must follow completion of official procedures.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a demand notice and subsequent sale notice under the SARFAESI Act, seeking expedited judicial proceedings regarding a stay in an ongoing securitisation application.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the completion of the sale and the registration of the sale certificate, indicating that there were no grounds for intervention, thus directing the petitioner to seek remedies in the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Issues: Whether the court should intervene in the sale process following the issuance of demand and sale notices under the SARFAESI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Once a sale occurs and a sale certificate is registered, the court's intervention by way of original petition is unwarranted, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to pursue remedies in appropriate forums post-sale.
Final Decision: The original petition is disposed of, leaving the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 demand notice and Ext.P8 sale notice and seeks for a direction to dispose of the stay petitions filed by the petitioner in the pending securitisation application. It is noticed that Ext.P2 demand notice is dated 07.11.2018 while Ext.P8 sale notice is dated 10.02.2021.
2. While this Court entertained a doubt regarding the delay in filing this original petition, Adv. Saju N.A., the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the sale pursuant to Ext.P8 had taken place and even the sale certificate was registered in the name of the auction purchaser. It was also informed that mutation had already been effected into the name of the auction purchaser.
3. Having regard to the circumstances mentioned above, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no reason for this Court to interfere at this sage. I find from the proceedings of this Court on 4.3.2021 that this Court had directed the petitioner to pursue the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and had declined to grant any interim order.
4. In the circumstances mentioned above, since the sale has already taken place, nothing further remains for consideration before this Court in this original petition. Suffice to say, remedy of the petitioner is to pursue the securitisation application pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam as S.A. No.93 of 2019. Since the Tribunal is not functioning at the moment, a direction for early disposal of the said application will be redundant.
Accordingly, this original petition is disposed of leaving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in the securitisation application, after the Tribunal commences its sitting.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 8/2021 PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
13.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN ELOOR.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.11.2018 UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAES ACT, 2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO
3820/2019 DATED 11.2.2019 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY FILED IN IA NO 422/2019 IN SA NO 93/2019 BEFORE THE DRT-1, ERNAKULAM BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
3.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ELOOR VILLAGE OFFICE EXHIBIT P5 (a) TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATE 3.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELOOR VILLAGE OFFICE EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELOOR VILLAGE OFFICE EXHIBIT P6 (a) TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE REPLY DATED 3.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELOOR VILLAGE OFFICE TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOTS OF THE ELECTRONIC MAIL DATED 20.2.2021 SENT TO THE PRINCIPAL BORROWER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
10.2.2021 SENT TO THE PRINCIPAL BORROWER VIA E-MAIL SERVICE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION ID NOT 2134 OF 2021 FILED BEFORE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1 ERNAKULAM
