Kerala High Court
P.M.Kelukutty vs Punjab National Bank Ltd on 22 April, 2022
WA NO. 519 OF 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 2ND VAISAKHA, 1944
WA NO. 519 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29910/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 3 TO 13 IN THE W.P (C):
1 P.M.KELUKUTTY,
AGED 80 YEARS
6/875 G, YMCA INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL COMPLEX, YMCA CROSS
ROAD, CALICUT 673001.
2 P. M. KELUKUTTY & BROTHERS,
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER P. M. KELUKUTTY,
6/875 N, YMCA INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL COMPLEX, YMCA CROSS
ROAD, CALICUT. 673001.
3 ABOOBACKER HAJIE.P,
6/875 A1, B, C, YMCA INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL COMPLEX,
YMCA CROSS ROAD, CALICUT- 673001.
4 SHAHINA.P,
YMCA INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL COMPLEX, YMCA CROSS ROAD,
CALICUT. 673001.
5 ABDULLA.N.P,
6/875 J, A1, B,C,D & E YMCA INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL
COMPLEX, YMCA CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE- 673001.
6 V.K.ABDULLA HAJI,
6/875 C, YMCA INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL COMPLEX, YMCA CROSS
ROAD, KOZHIKODE- 673001.
7 V.K.MOHAMMED ALI,
6/875 AL&B, YMCA INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL COMPLEX, YMCA
CROSS ROAD, CALICUT. 673001.
WA NO. 519 OF 2022
2
8 AMMED HAJI.P.,
6/875 D & E YMCA INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL COMPLEX, YMCA
CROSS ROAD, CALICUT. 673001.
9 GOPALAKRISHNAN @ UNNI,
6/875 F, YMCA INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL COMPLEX, YMCA CROSS
ROAD, CALICUT. 673001.
10 RASHID. V.K,
AGED 39 YEARS
YMCA INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL COMPLEX, YMCA CROSS ROAD,
KOZHIKODE-673001.
11 V.KUNHABDULLA,
AGED 50 YEARS
VANIYANTAVIDA HOUSE, NADAPURAM P.O., VATAKARA,
KOZHIKODE-673504.
BY ADVS.
A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN (SR.)
SHILPA SATHISH
JOSE JONES JOSEPH
INDRAJITH S KAIMAL
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN THE W.P ©/RESPONDENTS IN THE
W.P(C)/PETITIONER:
1 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LTD.,
(FORMERLY, THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA) REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER C/940, SAIKEN
CHAMBERS, KANNUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673001.
2 YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, YMCA CROSS ROAD, CALICUT,
KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
3 M/S. THREE LINE PROPERTIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI. ABDUL LATHIEF,
DOOR NO. OP7/813, OMASSERY PANCHAYAT, KOZHIKODE-673572.
BY ADV.S.EASWARAN - R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.04.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.S.DIAS & BASANT BALAJI,JJ.
---------------------------
W.A No.519 of 2022
-----------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2022.
JUDGMENT
C.S.Dias,J.
This intra-court appeal is filed assailing the
judgment in W.P (C) No.29910/2021, whereby the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode, is directed to dispose of
MC No.177/2017 filed under Section 14 of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( in short
'the Act') within one month. The respondents 3 to 13 in
the above writ petition are the appellants, and the
respondents 1 and 2 and the writ petitioner are the
respondents.
2. The appellants have averred in the
memorandum of writ appeal that; the 2 nd respondent had
availed a loan from the United Bank of India, presently
WA NO. 519 OF 2022
the 1st respondent, for the construction of an
international commercial complex. A mortgage by
deposit of title deed was created to secure the loan.
The loan agreement provided for the creation of lease.
The appellants are the tenants under the registered
lease deeds executed by the 2 nd respondent for periods
ranging from 51 to 99 years. The 2nd respondent
defaulted in repayment of the loan, compelling the 1 st
respondent to initiate proceedings under the Act. Even
though a sale notice was published, the same did not
fructify. Thereafter, with the consent of the 1st
respondent, a private sale took place. The property was
purchased by one Ahammed Koya, who manages the 3 rd
respondent firm. The 1st respondent had filed an
application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Kozhikode (in short 'Magistrate Court') under the Act, to
dispossess the appellants without disclosing the
agreements. The Magistrate Court ordered the
WA NO. 519 OF 2022
dispossession of the appellants. Although the appellants
challenged the order before this Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, they failed in their attempt. The
appellants have preferred review petitions before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are pending
consideration. During the pendency of the review
petitions, the erstwhile United Bank of India has filed an
application to substitute the name of the 1 st respondent
in its place. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent has filed the
writ petition seeking expeditious disposal of M.C
177/2017. The appellants 2,3 and 9 had filed their
counter affidavits resisting the writ petition, including
its maintainability. It was, inter alia, contended that the
writ petition may be considered only after the review
petitions are decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
But, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ
petition by directing the Magistrate Court to dispose of
MC 177/2017 within one month from the date of receipt
WA NO. 519 OF 2022
of a certified copy of the judgment. The 1 st respondent is
taking hasty steps to dispossess the appellants. Hence
the writ appeal.
3. Heard; Sri.Sudhi Vasudevan, the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and
Sri.S.Easwaran, the learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd
respondent/ writ petitioner.
4. A reading of the impugned judgment and the
pleadings and the materials on record substantiate that
the case at hand has a chequered history.
5. The proceedings under the Act were initiated
by the predecessor of the 1st respondent as early as in
the year 2008. As can be gathered from the impugned
judgment and the admitted averments in the writ
petition and the counter affiavits, series of litigations
were initiated before this Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, which have now attained the finality,
except for the so-called review petitions for which there
WA NO. 519 OF 2022
is no material on record.
6. The appellants case is that; challenging Ext.P8
order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
Review Petition No.31/2020 in W.A No.158/2016 and
connected cases, they had preferred Special Leave
Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even
though the Special Leave Petitions have been dismissed,
they have now preferred Review Petitions, which have
not been listed. Therefore, the learned Single Judge
ought not to have decided the writ petition till a final
decision is taken in the review petitions.
7. Undisputedly, no interim order has been passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the review petitions
interdicting further proceedings initiated under the Act.
The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 11.2.2022. As rightly
observed by the learned Single Judge, the mere filing of
review petitions is not a ground to stall the culmination
WA NO. 519 OF 2022
of the proceedings initiated under the Act. The proper
course for the appellants is to move the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and seek a stay of further proceedings
under the Act. It would be a travesty of justice to keep
the 3rd respondent - a beneficiary of the sale held more
12 years back - waiting for the final disposal of the
review petitions. We do not find any error or illegality in
the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge directing the Magistrate Court to dispose of MC
177/2017 in a time bound manner,which would only
secure the ends of justice.
The Writ Appeal is devoid of any merits and is hence
dismissed.
Sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
ma/23.4.2022 Sd/-BASANT BALAJI,JUDGE
/True copy/
