Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 45588
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, J
V P KUTTAPPAN – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 7259/2017
The court emphasized the necessity for adherence to procedural rules in debt recovery and allowed for negotiations through private purchasers to fulfill loan obligations.
Headnote:
Legal - Security Interest - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - The court directed the respondent to facilitate a resolution accommodating the petitioner's proposal to bring a purchaser for the property to satisfy the debt.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the validity of a notice issued by the Bank, arguing that prior orders regarding the sale of mortgaged property were not followed. The petitioner contended that the bank should allow for a piecemeal sale of the property to satisfy outstanding loans.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered both the petitioner's inability to press the previous orders and the Bank's willingness to accept payment from a potential purchaser. It ruled to set aside the sale to allow the petitioner to procure a buyer for the property.
Issues: Whether the Bank complied with earlier judicial directions regarding the sale of the mortgaged property and how this affects the recovery process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner must bring a purchaser for the property within a specified timeframe to relieve the debt, reinforcing the need for cooperation between the Bank and the borrower.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to bring a buyer for the property within three months.
J U D G M E N T
The ground raised by the petitioner to challenge Ext.P11 notice is that the order at Ext.P6 has not been complied with.
2. Ext.P6 was a writ petition, when the Bank had earlier taken proceedings against the mortgaged property of the petitioner for recovery of dues in the loan account. Therein there was a specific contention taken that the entire property need not be sold for realisation of the debt. In such circumstance, this Court had directed the 1st respondent to make over the representation to the 3rd respondent, who was also directed to consider the contention taken, in accordance with the Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement ) Rules, 2002 (for brevity 'the Rules').
W.P.(C)No.7259/2017
3. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the petitioner had never pressed for a consideration as per Ext.P6, after the judgment was passed. In fact, even after the judgment, the property was put up for sale once, in which no bidders turned up. In such circumstance, there can also be no consideration of any piece meal sale as of now. The sale is said to have been posted on 07.03.2017 as per Ext.P11.
4. The contention now taken up by the petitioner is that the petitioner would bring a purchaser for a portion of the property, which would satisfy the loan amount itself. If the petitioner so brings forth the purchaser, the Bank is willing to settle the entire issue, submits the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank.
5. In such circumstance, the sale proposed as per Ext.P11 will stand set aside, only to facilitate the satisfaction of the loan by the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to bring W.P.(C)No.7259/2017 forth a purchaser for the entire property or for a portion of the property, so as to satisfy the entire loan account, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If the petitioner so brings forth such purchaser, the Bank would consider the sale in such a manner as to satisfy the entire loan account. If no purchaser is brought forth, within the time provided, the Bank would be entitled to resume the recovery proceedings. The petitioner is also entitled to make an application for One Time Settlement, which shall be made, within a period of two weeks and the same shall be considered within a period of one month from that date.
The writ petition would stand disposed of with the above observations.
