Sarumma vs The Authorised Officer, The Ponani ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 15679 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sarumma vs The Authorised Officer, The Ponani ... on 6 June, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 9619 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

          SARUMMA
          AGED 66 YEARS
          W/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, EDAKKARAKATH HOUSE,
          EZHUVATHIRUTHY, PONANI,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679577.

          BY ADV SUBI K.


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
          THE PONANI CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.
          REGD. & ADMN. OFFICE, C.V.JUNCTION,
          PONANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679577.

          BY ADVS.
          SHOBY K.FRANCIS
          AGI SHOBY(A-768)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 9619 OF 2024
                                    -2-

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P1 notice, but it

is today revealed that she has already filed

W.P(C)No.4219/2023, wherein, the action taken by

the respondent - Bank, under the provisions of

the Securitization and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act') has been

challenged.

2. Sri.Subi K. - learned counsel for the

petitioner, submitted that his client was not

aware of the pendency of the earlier Writ

Petition because it was one filed at the

instance of her son; and that she had only

signed the papers as instructed by him. He

apologised for the confusion; and prayed that

this Writ Petition be allowed to be withdrawn

because, Ext.P1 notice was only an intimation WP(C) NO. 9619 OF 2024

given to his client, asking her to remit money.

3. Sri.Shoby K.Francis - learned counsel

for the respondent - Bank, affirmed that Ext.P1

is not a distress notice, but only an intimation

to the petitioner about the amount due from her;

and that his client has already invoked

necessary provisions under the 'SARFAESI Act'

before the jurisdictional Court, under Section

14 thereof.

In the afore circumstances, this Writ

Petition is dismissed as having been withdrawn,

with full liberty being reserved to the

petitioner to invoke every other remedy,

including to pursue W.P(C)No.4219/2023 as per

law; for which, all her contentions are left

open.

Sd/-

                                            DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
akv                                                  JUDGE