Kerala High Court
Leela T vs Karamana Co Operative Urban Bank ... on 29 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.2290 OF 2021(I)
PETITIONER:
LEELA T.
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.LATE RAVINDRAN, TC 21/1354(3), VILAYIL VILAKATH
VEEDU, SOMAN NAGAR, NEDUMCAUD, KARAMANA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002.
BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
RESPONDENT:
KARAMANA CO OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED
NO.1761 REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT GENERAL
MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, KARAMANA P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 002.
BY SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.2290/2021 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of January 2021
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following
reliefs:
i) Issue a writ of certiorari or writ of similar nature or
order or direction calling for the records leading to
Ext.P2 and quash the same and the proceedings
pursuant thereto.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or writ of similar nature or
direction commanding the respondent to regularize
the loan account of the petitioner by giving
instalment facility to clear the overdue amount
immediately or in the alternative to clear the debt in
15 instalments.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He
submits that the petitioner is challenging the action taken by the
secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act. He also submits that
the matter was already disposed of as seen from Ext.P3.
However, in the disposed matter, again action is being taken by
the secured creditor by deputing Advocate Commissioner for
taking possession of the property which is secured asset. In
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this action
under the SARFAESI Act taken by the respondent is totally illegal.
3. I have considered the submissions so advanced. Upon
hearing submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and
as seen from the prayer clause made in the instant writ petition it
is clear that what is impugned is the action taken by the secured
creditor as reflected from the document at Ext.P2 which happens
to be notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner. In the light of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of
Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another
vs. Mathew K.C (2018(1) KLT 784), this writ petition, as
framed and filed, is thus not maintainable, in the wake of
alternate and most efficacious remedy made available under the
SARFAESI Act.
4. Be that as it may, even on earlier occasion, the petitioner
has moved this Court vide W.P.(C) No.35648 of 2019 which came
to be decided on 10.01.2020. It was directed that the petitioner
shall clear the balance outstanding dues in four equal monthly
instalments and it was further clarified by this Court while
deciding the said matter that if the petitioner commits any
default, then benefit of the direction shall not be continued.
It is clear that the petitioner has not followed the directions
given in the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.35648 of 2019.
In the light of this fact, the petitioner cannot now again claim
relief in equity.
This writ petition as such is devoid of merit and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.BADAR
JUDGE
smp
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
10/1/2020 IN WP(C) NO.35648/2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7/1/2021
ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER
ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE STATUS OF
MC NO.1230/2019 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN
E COURTS.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
True Copy
P.S to Judge
smp
