IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 35180 of 2007(K)
1. MR. T.A.AUGUSTINE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. UNION BANK OF INDIA,
3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 35180 OF 2007 L
=====================
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against the
proceedings initiated by the Bank under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002. First objection is against Ext.P4 possession
notice issued by the bank on 16/11/2007. It is contended by the
petitioner that 13(2) notice having been served only on 26/9/07,
Ext.P4 issued on 16/11/2007 was premature. This submission of
the learned counsel is not contested by the Bank. On the other
hand, all that the Bank would now submit is that in any case by
now, the period specified in the Act has expired and that the
Bank does not intend to act upon Ext.P4.
2. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is that
on receipt of Ext.P4 notice issued under Section 13(2), Ext.P5
WPC 35180/07
:2 :
reply has been submitted by the petitioner and that considering
the objection vide Ext.P5, no order has been passed. In reply to
this submission, it is submitted by the standing counsel for the
Bank that if reply has not been given, they will consider the reply
and pass orders thereon. According to him, only thereafter,
further action will be continued against the petitioner.
3. In so far as the contention of the petitioner that the
property involved is an agricultural property is concerned, this is
disputed by the Bank. According to the Bank, this being a
“purayidam” is not eligible to be exempted from the purview of
the Act. In any case, in view of the serious factual dispute raised
in this respect, I do not propose to examine the correctness or
otherwise of this argument and leave open the parties to contest
the same in appropriate proceedings.
In view of what has been submitted by the counsel for the
Bank and recorded as above, this writ petition is disposed of.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp