Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 42955
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
S. VIJAYAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE – Respondent
WP(C)/19041/2015
SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN, SMT.V.S.RAKHEE, SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE, SRI.BABY ANTONY, SRI.GEORGE VALLAKKALIL, SRI.MANUEL VIVERA, SRI.V.K.PRATHAPACHANDRAN
A defaulter cannot challenge a final sale under SARFAESI without utilizing available legal remedies as prescribed by the Act.
Headnote:
SARFAESI - Defaulter Proceedings - SARFAESI Act - Sections 13, 17 - The court reaffirmed that a borrower can challenge sales under SARFAESI proceedings but must do so within the framework provided by the Act, thus confirming the legitimacy of the concluded sale.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the sale of secured assets as part of SARFAESI proceedings, claiming readiness to settle with the Bank after failing to comply with earlier court orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale was completed with due process and the petitioner had not shown readiness to resolve the liability; thus, there was no basis for interference.
Issues: Whether the sale under SARFAESI proceedings should be set aside in light of the petitioner's claim to settle his dues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner could pursue remedies under the SARFAESI Act and observed that the sale was final and compliant with legal requirements.
Final Decision: Writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a defaulter to the respondent-Bank has approached this Court challenging the sale pursuant to the SARFAESI proceedings.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to settle the entire liability to the Bank and also prepared to pay any amount in addition to the purchase amount made by the 3rd respondent.
3. It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court challenging SARFAESI proceedings and this Court ordered the payment in instalments and the petitioner failed to comply with the directions.
4. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the sale was taken place on 28.01.2015 for Rs. 39,06,000/- and the excess amount received from the sale being Rs. 18,28,564/- has been given to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner has not prepared for any settlement and the sale has become final and he made a lot of improvements in the secured assets.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court need not to interfere with the sale proceedings. If the petitioner has any grievance against the sale proceedings, he has sufficient remedy under the Act to challenge before the appropriate Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
