Jayakumar.R vs State Bank Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 1437 Ker

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                        PRESENT

                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

               FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944

                               WP(C) NO. 1995 OF 2023

PETITIONER:

               JAYAKUMAR.R
               AGED 48 YEARS
               S/O. RATHINAMOORTHY. M, VELLARANGALMEDU,
               VANNAMADA.P.O, KOZHIPATHY,
               PALAKKAD., PIN - 678555
               BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)


RESPONDENTS:

     1         STATE BANK OF INDIA
               ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH,
               40/947 1ST FLOOR, R.S.BUILDING, METRO PILLAR NO.697,
               M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
               REP BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, PIN - 682011
     2         STATE BANK OF INDIA
               CHITTUR BRANCH,
               CHITTUR POST, PALAKKAD,
               REP BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 678555

OTHER PRESENT:

               ADV. TOM K THOMAS (SC)



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P. (C) No. 1995 of 2023
                                  ..2..




                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this court being

aggrieved by the fact that certain property belonging to

the petitioner has been brought to sale under the

provisions of the SARFAESI Act at a time when the Original

Application filed by the bank before the Tribunal under the

provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,

1993 is pending consideration before the Tribunal.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that when the Original Application has already

been filed and when the matter is pending adjudication of

the Tribunal, the bank cannot be permitted to parallelly

initiate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and bring

the property to sale. It is submitted that this would defeat

the very purpose of the provisions contained in the

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy act and the petitioner

will lose a chance to contest the matter on merits before

the Tribunal.

W.P. (C) No. 1995 of 2023 ..3..

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent

bank would submit that the question as to whether the

bank can parallelly proceed under the provisions of the

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act and the provisions

of the SARFAESI Act has already been settled by the

decision of the Supreme Court in Transcore v. Union of

India [2008 (1) KHC 4002]; [2008 (1) SCC 125 ]

and that of this court in M/S Lekshmi Enterprises and

others v. the State of Kerala [2008 KHC 74]; [2008

(2) KLT 2] it is submitted that it has been categorically

held that where the remedies are independent and when

they are not mutually exclusive it is open to the

respondent bank to continue with the proceedings under

the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act and the

SARFAESI Act parallelly.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent bank and having regard to the law laid down

in the judgments pointed out by the learned counsel W.P. (C) No. 1995 of 2023 ..4..

appearing for the respondent bank, I am of the view that

the relief sought for in the present Writ Petition cannot be

granted. The Writ Petition fails. It is accordingly,

dismissed.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE RMV W.P. (C) No. 1995 of 2023 ..5..

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1995/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 23.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE