High Court Kerala High Court

A.Vincent vs The Authorised Officer on 30 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
A.Vincent vs The Authorised Officer on 30 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 3217 of 2009(G)


1. A.VINCENT, S/O.ANDREWS, AGED 43 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, DEWAN HOUSING
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MANAGER, DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.MOHANLAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :30/01/2009

 O R D E R
         THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

            W.P.(C).No.3217 of 2009-G

  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

      Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009.

                     JUDGMENT

1.The petitioner is one among the co-obligants of a

transaction that has led to Ext.P7 possession

notice under Section 13(4) of the SERFAESI Act

read with Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest

(Enforcement) Rules, 2002 issued on 17-1-2009.

The petitioner is, therefore, well within time to

move the DRT under Section 17 of that Act.

2.The dispute appears to be that certain

remittances made by the petitioner have not been

given due credit to and that the petitioner is

prepared to pay off the remaining actual

outstandings within a short time frame. This is a

matter which would be well within the

jurisdiction of the DRT. It is also contended by

the petitioner that the respondents are not

WP(C)3217/2009 -: 2 :-

entitled to invoke the provisions of the SARFAESI

Act since the creditor is not an institution

notified for the purpose of that Act. This is

also a matter that could be looked into by the

DRT. It is inappropriate for the writ court to

enter on an adjudication as to whether due

credits have been given and the amount fixed in

the possession notice has been duly arrived at.

In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ

petition is dismissed preserving liberty of the

petitioner to move the DRT in terms of Section 17

of the SARFAESI Act.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.

Sha/120209