IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 6297 of 2008(Y)
1. P.T.MUTHU @ THAPASYA MUTHU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VIJAYA BANK, BROADWAY BRANCH,
... Respondent
2. ARUL SREENIVASH, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :22/02/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 6297 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated: February 22, 2008
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this writ petition is against the proceedings
initiated against the mortgaged person under the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 against the 2nd respondent who had mortgaged
the property in 2004. The commissioner appointed in pursuance to
an order under sec.14 of the Act has called upon the petitioner,
being the occupant of the house, to vacate from the house and it is
in this context the writ petition has been filed.
2. Though the petitioner offers to discharge the liability, in
view of the facts of this case I do not think the petitioner is entitled
to do so.
3. It is pointed out by the standing counsel for the bank that a
loan of Rs.12 lakhs was availed of by the 2nd respondent mortgaging
WP(C) 6297/08
Page numbers
the property in 2004. It is stated that following the defaults in
repayment, the account was classified as NPA in 2005 and a notice
under sec.13(2) of the Act was also issued on 18.7.2005. There was
no response and finally the notice under sec.13(4) was affixed in the
premises on 16.11.2005. Thereafter the bank obtained an order
under sec.14 of the Act on 29.12.2006 and a Commissioner was
also appointed on 19.12.2007. It is thereafter that the
commissioner has issued Ext.P5 on 15.2.2008. Then the petitioner,
who is only an occupant of the house, has filed this writ petition
and the loanee has not chosen to challenge the proceedings.
4. From the facts it is evident that since 2004 there has not
been any payment and the person who has availed of the loan and
mortgaged the property is not contesting the proceedings. True,
the petitioner has a case that the property originally belonged to
him and that the property was transferred to the 2nd respondent
without consideration. In these proceedings I am not called upon to
examine the correctness of these averments, but I need only say
that the ownership of the property remains with the 2nd respondent
who had availed of the loan.
WP(C) 6297/08
Page numbers
5. Thus, this is a case of chronic default and hence the bank
cannot be faulted for the action it has taken. The petitioner, being a
stranger to the proceedings, is not entitled to the relief sought for.
Writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mt/-