N.K.Farooque @N Ummer Farookh vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 22433 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

         TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943

                          WP(C) NO. 24478 OF 2021

PETITIONER:

              N.K.FAROOQUE @ UMMER FAROOKH
              AGED 50 YEARS
              S/O. ABDUL KHADER,
              FATHIMA VILLA, KANACHERI,
              CHAPPA, EACHUR, KANNUR-670 591.
              BY ADVS.
              VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
              P.J.JOSE
              SUSANTH SHAJI


RESPONDENTS:

     1        UNION OF INDIA
              REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
              DEPARTMENT OF BANKING OPERATIONS,
              SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110 001.
     2        THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
              MADAYI BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
              MADAYI, PAZHAYANGADI, KANNUR-670 304.
     3        THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
              STATE BANK OF INDIA,
              ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH,
              R.S. BUILDING,
              M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 24478 OF 2021
                                           2




                  BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
                ==========================
                    W.P.(C) No.24478 of 2021
                 ---------------------------------------
           Dated this the 9 th day of November, 2021

                                   JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed primarily challenging

Ext.P4 sale notice scheduling the sale to

28.09.2021. This writ petition is filed only on

05.10.2021, apprehending that, though pursuant

to Ext.P4, no sale took place, respondents may,

on some other day, without the knowledge of

the petitioner, effect a sale.

2. Adv.S.Easwaran, the learned Counsel appearing

on behalf of the respondents submitted that sale

had not taken place pursuant to Ext.P4 and that

there was no intention of any nature, on the

part of the respondents, to conduct a sale,

without the knowledge of the petitioner or

without issuing a fresh sale notice. The said WP(C) NO. 24478 OF 2021

submissions are recorded.

3. Though satisfied with the above submissions,

learned counsel for the petitioner then referred

to relief No.(iii), which was in the nature of a

direction for considering the application for a

One Time Settlement to be filed by the

petitioner.

4. Having regard to the circumstances and the

submissions made by the learned counsel, I am

of the view that nothing prevents the petitioner

from approaching the Bank with an application

for settlement.

5. If any application for a settlement of the

liability is filed by the petitioner within a period

of 10 days from today, notwithstanding the

propsoal for sale of the property, the

respondent-Bank shall consider the same and

pass appropriate orders within a period of 15 WP(C) NO. 24478 OF 2021

days thereafter.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above

observations.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/09/11//2021 WP(C) NO. 24478 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24478/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE 13(2) NOTICE DATED 18.10.2014.

Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.

Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 5.3.2021.

Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FRESH NOTICE DELIVERED WHICH IS NOT SEEN DATE IN WHICH SALE WILL CONDUCT ON 28.9.2021.

Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BOARD IN PHOTOSTAT FROM WHICH IS TREATED AS A NOTICE.

  RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS     NIL

                                                                TRUE COPY