Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
V. P. MURALEEDHARAN – Appellant
Versus
AUTHROIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to sarfaesi proceedings by non-owner. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner claims ownership to protect family property. (Para 3) |
| 3. court finds lack of legal standing. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
It is aggrieved by the coercive action taken by the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act’ for short), this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner claims to be the original owner of the secured asset, which was mortgaged to the respondent bank, by the 2nd respondent while availing a loan.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property has now been put to sale and the second respondent is not at all interested to protect the property, which is his family property. According to him, it is for saving his family property, this writ petition has been filed.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioner has no locus to file this writ petition since, he is neither the owner of the property nor the guarantor in the loan transaction.
On an anxious cons
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
