Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57947
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
BAVAKUNJU P.K – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK LTD. – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 47875 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.K.SUNILKUMAR
For the Respondents: SHRI.LEO GEORGE
A petition becomes infructuous when prior court resolutions are not followed, allowing further action under appropriate laws.
Headnote:The writ petition challenges Ext.P4 sale notice dated 01.11.2025, for sale of property scheduled for 25.11.2025. The court noted that the sale was conducted, and a certificate was issued favoring Muhammed Sinan. The petitioner previously failed to comply with court directions to clear dues. The current petition became infructuous, referencing South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311], allowing the petitioner to seek recourse at the DRT if necessary. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to sale notice and resolution of compliance. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. judicial findings on the auction and compliance failure. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 19th day of December, 2025)
The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 sale notice issued on 01.11.2025, for sale of the property on 25.11.2025.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, on instructions, submits that the sale was conducted on 25.11.2025 and was confirmed in favour of one Muhammed Sinan, to whom the sale certificate has also been issued.
3. Moreover, the petitioner had already approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.9409/2017, wherein this Court granted 12 instalments to clear the entire outstanding amount. However, the petitioner failed to comply with those directions. Thereafter, the petitioner filed S.A before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which was also dismissed. The present sale notice was issued following the dismissal of the S.A., culminating in the issuance of the sale certificate.
Therefore, the prayer in the writ petition has become infructuous. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311] , the petitioner is at liberty to approach the DRT to challenge the sale of the property, if so advised.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
