Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26358
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
JEMILY JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
BIJU K JOSEPH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 18663/2014
The court affirmed that no intervention in bank recovery processes under the SARFAESI Act is permissible, reaffirming the buyer's responsibility to ascertain property titles.
Headnote:
Banking - Writ Petition - SARFAESI Act - Sections regarding property auction and rights of bona fide purchasers - The court interpreted provisions preventing interference in bank recovery actions and upheld the decision not to delay property sales.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to halt the sale of his property until another property, belonging to different borrowers, was sold first. The petitioner claimed to be a bona fide purchaser unaware of the mortgage on his property.
Issues: Whether the court could direct the bank to prioritize the sale of another property before proceeding with the petitioner's property sale.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the established principle that it cannot intervene in recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P6 representation of the petitioner and not to proceed against his property having an extent of 18 cents situated in Thanneermukkom South Village till the property of respondents 3 and 4 having an extent of 51 cents and the building thereon in the very same village are sold and the sale proceeds thereof are adjusted towards the amount due from respondents 3 and 4.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a bona fide purchaser as far as 18 cents of property is concerned. The property belonging to the borrowers having an extent of 51 cents and 18 cents have been mortgaged to the respondent bank. He purchased the property without knowing about the mortgage in favour of the respondent W.P.C.No.18663/2014 2 bank. Petitioner's case is that now proceedings have been taken by the respondent bank to effect sale of these two properties and publication has already been made in that regard. The present request of the petitioner is that the property having an extent of 51 cents which actually belongs to respondents 3 and 4 should be sold first and only if there is any balance amount due, then the property having an extent of 18 cents need be sold.
3. Respondent has filed a statement inter alia stating that the balance due in respect of two loan accounts is more than Rs.1,10,00,000/-. The property having an extent of 18 cents is more valuable than the other property having an extent of 51 cents. Since steps have already been taken to effect sale of both properties, petitioner cannot intervene in the said proceedings being taken by the bank. That apart, it is contended that the petitioner is not a bona fide purchaser as he had purchased the property even without seeing the original title deed.
W.P.C.No.18663/2014 3
4. It is the settled position of law that this Court cannot interfere with the proceedings taken by the bank under the SARFAESI Act as held by the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [ (2010) 8 SCC 110 ] . Having regard to the aforesaid fact, I do not think that this Court can issue any direction, as sought for in the writ petition.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
(
