IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. G. Arun, J
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK – Appellant
Versus
SUNIL S.S. – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1924 OF 2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. extension of time for executing commission warrant under the sarfaesi act. (Para 1) |
| 2. bank's obligation to show balance amounts in recovery cases. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. court's allowance for filing fresh petitions. (Para 3) |
| 4. court directs merit-based evaluation for fresh petitions. (Para 5) |
O R D E R
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2025 The petitioner, a nationalized bank, is aggrieved by the dismissal of its application seeking extension of the time limit fixed for executing the commission warrant issued under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act . The essential facts are as under;
After availing a loan from the petitioner bank, the 1st respondent committed default, compelling the bank to initiate recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act . The proceeding reached the stage of the bank taking physical possession of the secured property. For that purpose, the bank filed a petition under Section 14 before the jurisdictional court. The said petition was allowed and an Advocate Commissioner appointed for assisting the bank in taking physical possession of the property. In the meanwhile, the respondents approached the bank and offered to pay substantial amount and requested to hold the recovery proceedings in abeyance. Believing the offer to be genuine, the bank kept the recovery proceedings in abeyance. As a result, the time limit for executing the warrant issued to the Advocate Commissioner, expired. As the respondents failed to abide by their promise, the bank approached the Magistrate with an application seeking extension of the time limit stipulated in the warrant. That petition having been dismissed by Annexure A5 order, this Crl.M.C is filed.
2. I heard Adv. Jaykar K.S appearing for the petitioner bank and Adv. G.Sudheer for the party respondents.
3. From the submissions made across the Bar, it is apparent that, after appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Section 14 , some amount was paid by the respondents.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the bank is bound to show the balance amount in the affidavit filed along with the petition under Section 14 .
5. In view of the subsequent payments, the bank can be permitted to file a fresh petition under Section 14 accompanied by an affidavit showing the exact balance amount due from the respondents.
The Crl.M.C is accordingly disposed of by permitting the bank to file a fresh petition under Section 14 and directing the jurisdictional Magistrate to decide the petition on merits.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.