High Court Kerala High Court

Padmanabhan.K.T. vs The Kerala State Co-Operative on 9 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Padmanabhan.K.T. vs The Kerala State Co-Operative on 9 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 2695 of 2007()


1. PADMANABHAN.K.T., S/O.A.K.C.VELAYUDHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI

                For Respondent  :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK

The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :09/02/2009

 O R D E R
               J.B. KOSHY, Ag. CJ. & P.B HAVADASAN, J.
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      WRIT APPEAL No. 2695 of 2007
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009.

                                      JUDGMENT

KOSHY, Ag.CJ,

The appellant-petitioner took loan from the Kerala State

Co-operative Bank and created security of his property by deposit of

title deeds. When action was taken under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, the petitioner approached this court. The learned Single

Judge relegated the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.

2. The main contention of the petitioner that the Kerala

State Co-operative Bank, which is a scheduled Bank, will not come

under the SARFAESI Act was turned down by the learned Single

Judge by following the decision reported in Greater Bombay Co-

operative Bank Ltd. v. M/s. United Yarn Tex. Pvt. Ltd. (JT 2007(5)

SC 201).

3. In view of the fact that the property was about to be

sold, this court had granted interim stay on 11.1.2008 provided the

petitioner pays 25% of the amount demanded within two months from

WA. 2695/2007. 2

the date of the order. That period expired on 11.3.2008. So far 25% of the

amount was not paid. The impugned judgment is dated 20.9.2007.

Therefore, we see no merit in the writ appeal. However, if the petitioner

files an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, it is for the said

authority to consider the matter and take a decision in accordance with law.

We dismiss the writ appeal.

J.B. KOSHY,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

P. BHAVADASAN,
JUDGE

sb.