Kerala High Court
P.M Abraham vs State Bank Of India on 24 September, 2025
WP(C) NO. 35003 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:71306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 2ND ASWINA,
1947
WP(C) NO. 35003 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
P.M ABRAHAM,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O THOMAS MATHEW, MALOOTTU, ATHULYA BHAVAN,KONNI
PO, MANGARAM, PATHANTHITTA REPRESENTED BY HIS
POWER OF ATTORNEY MARY NINAN, C/O NINAN KOCHI,
ETIMOTTIL PUTHEN VEEDU MENKULAM, CHENNAPETTA PO,
KOLLAM KERALA, PIN - 691311
BY ADV SHRI.GENTLE C.D.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA
RASMEC, 1ST FLOOR, KACHANATHU TOWERS
PATHANANTHITTA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
PIN - 689653
2 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH,LMS
COMPOUND,OPP:MUSIUM WEST GATE,VIKAS BHAVAN
P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGER, PIN - 695033
3 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
BRANCH CODE: 70062D KONNI MANDIR OMKAR MANDIR
MAIN ROAD, KONNI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
PIN - 689691
SRI.TOM K.THOMAS, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 35003 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:71306
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"1. Issue a writ of appropriate order or direction,
commanding the respondent bank only to take possession of
the item No.1 property in the survey sketch marked as
Exhibit_P6 measuring 4.35 ares (10.75 cents) with the four-
storied commercial building situated therein, for realization
of the liability, and to restrain the respondent Bank from
taking possession of any other properties of the petitioner.
2. Declare that the property measuring 4.35 ares (10.75
cents), as described in Exhibit P6, has sufficient fair value to
clear the outstanding liability of the petitioner, and that the
four-storied commercial building having a floor area of
12,000 sq. ft. constructed thereon substantially enhances its
market value, ensuring that there would be a surplus
amount available to be remitted back to the petitioner after
its sale.
3. Direct the respondents to take necessary steps in this
regard within such time as may be stipulated by this Hon'ble
Court.
4. Dispense with the production of translated copies of the
vernacular documents
&
5. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2025:KER:71306
2. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by
filing W.P.(C) No.15757 of 2025, in which this Court, by judgment
dated 11.04.2025, noted the contention of the petitioner that the
property mortgaged has an extent of 56 cents and that the total
outstanding liability is less than Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs
only). It was also submitted that they proposed to sell a part of the
property in order to clear the entire liability of the bank if a
month's time is granted. Accordingly, the writ petition was
disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit a proposal to the
bank for 3rd party sale of the property within a period of two
weeks, and the bank was directed to take a decision within two
weeks thereafter. Thereafter, the bank passed Ext.P3 order dated
28.04.2025, noting that the petitioner did not clear off the liability
within one month and that the proposal given by the petitioner is
vague and indefinite. Thereafter, the petitioner filed S.A. No.725 of
2024, in which an interim order initially granted was vacated on
11.08.2025, and the matter was posted for hearing on 02.09.2025.
3. The petitioner did not produce a copy of the judgment
in W.P.(C) No.15757 of 2025 while filing this writ petition, and as
directed by this Court, the same was produced along with I. A No.1
2025:KER:71306
of 2025. Likewise, the interim order initially granted by the
Tribunal is also not produced.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
sale of a portion of a property can wipe out the entire liability.
These are all the contentions the petitioner can urge before the
Tribunal while challenging the measures of the secured creditor
for the sale of the property. Parallel attempts by filing this writ
petition after the stay granted by the tribunal is vacated, cannot be
entertained.
The stay petition having been dismissed, the remedy of
the petitioner is to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Without
prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail of the same and
without prejudice to any of the contentions, the writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
Anu
2025:KER:71306
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35003/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit_P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AT
NEW YORK, USA, DATED 13.09.2025
Exhibit_P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE
CERTIFICATE, SHOWING A RATE OF
₹14,67,180 PER ARE FOR THE LAND IN RE-
SY. NO. 57, BLOCK NO. 33, KONNI
VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
Exhibit_P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL REJECTION
LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK
DATED 28/04/2025 PURSUANT TO THE
JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 15757 OF 2025
Exhibit_P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DRT PROCEEDINGS IN
S.A. NO. 725 OF 2024 DATED 11.08.2025
Exhibit_P5 A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN FROM THE MAIN ROAD
SHOWING THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND THE
PATHWAY LEADING TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES
Exhibit_P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH
PREPARED BY THE SAID SURVEYOR, DATED
09.11.2024
ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
11.04.2025 IN W.P.(C) NO. 15757 OF 2025
