Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI TH, J
ABHIJITH B. – Appellant
Versus
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. guarantor's death does not halt recovery proceedings initiated with valid notices. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal representation argues need for fresh notifications to heirs. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court asserts no fresh notices needed, upholding validity of prior served notifications. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. authority enshrined in sarfaesi act allows continuation of proceedings after valid service. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 18th day of November 2025)
The petitioner is a legal heir of the late Mr. Babu (the fifth respondent), who served as a guarantor for a loan obtained by the second respondent firm from the first respondent bank. Following a default in repayment, the bank initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against respondent Nos.2 to 6. The property currently secured under these proceedings was inherited by the petitioner following the demise of Mr. Babu on August 6, 2025.
2. The petitioner submits that the first respondent bank continued proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act (M.C. No. 689/2025) despite having knowledge of the fifth respondent’s demise. Pursuant to these proceedings, the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the CJM, Kollam
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
