Balakrishnan Nambiar vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 2469 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

               RP.No.32 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 6130/2019

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6130/2019(M) DATED 19.03.2019


REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

      1      BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 74 YEARS
             S/O K.P.SANKARA KURUP, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE MAMBAYIL
             HOUSE, POST THIRUVALLOOR-673 541. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

      2      DEVI AMMA, W/O BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT
             KIZHAKKE MAMBAYIL HOUSE, POST THIRUVALLOOR-673 541.
             KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

             BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1      THE STATE OF KERALA
             REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
             CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      2      THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
             KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
             KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT-673 002, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

      3      THE BRANCH MANAGER,
             KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
             THIRUVALLOOR BRANCH, POST THIRUVALLOOR-673 541,
             VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

      4      THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
             KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT-673 002, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REP
             BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER .

      5      SHRI P.P.RAMESH,
             S/O BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE
             MAMBAYIL HOUSE, POST THIRUVALLOOR-673 541. VADAKARA,
             KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

             SRI. P.C.SASIDHARAN - SC,
 RP 32/21
                             2

            SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL - SR.GP

     THIS  REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING  BEEN   FINALLY  HEARD   ON
21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP 32/21
                                    3



                                    ORDER

This petition seeking review of the

judgment dated 19.03.2019 has been filed saying

that the order of this Court - that the

petitioner will be foreclosed from challenging

the measures taken by the Bank under the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest

Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity), if the

directions therein are not complied with -

causes irreparable hardship and in fact, denies

to him his rightful remedies under law.

2. Even when I hear Sri.Varghese C.

Kuriakose - learned counsel for the petitioner,

on the afore lines, I fail to understand why

his client should have approached this Court at

all because it is clear from my judgment what

has been foreclosed is the remedy of the

petitioner against the measure that is impugned

in the Writ Petition and not against the RP 32/21

measures that will be taken by the Bank in

future. This is pertinent because it is well-

settled that every measure taken by the Bank

under the SARFAESI Act creates a fresh cause of

action; and obviously, therefore, even if the

petitioner is foreclosed from challenging the

measures impugned in the Writ Petition, he

would not be so with respect to the measures

taken by the Bank subsequently.

In the afore circumstances, I do not find

any reason to entertain this Review Petition

and it is, therefore, closed with the afore

clarification.

Sd/-

                                   DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
       RR                                  JUDGE