High Court Kerala High Court

Abdul Salam vs The Manager on 27 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Abdul Salam vs The Manager on 27 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15682 of 2010(I)


1. ABDUL SALAM, S/O.HANEEFA KUNJU,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SANOOJA A., D/O.ABDUL SALAM,
3. SAMNA A., D/O.ABDUL SALAM,

                        Vs



1. THE MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ADV.A.G.ALEXANDER, (ADVOCATE

3. ROY MOL, PROPRIETOR, M/S.ROY FABRICS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.LIJU. M.P

                For Respondent  :SRI.PRATHEESH.P

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :27/07/2010

 O R D E R
                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    W.P. (C) No. 15682 of 2010
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                Dated, this the 27th day of July, 2010

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioners, who were the tenants of the premises owned by

the third respondent, were constrained to approach this Court because

of the coercive proceedings taken by the Bank, in the course of the

steps taken under the SARFAESI Act, for the realization of the amount

stated as due from the 3rd respondent under a loan transaction.

2. Pursuant to the interim order dated 3.6.2010, the building,

which has already taken possession of, with the help of the second

respondent/Advocate Commissioner appointed by the concerned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, as per the Ext. P3 order in Ext. P2 petition filed

under Section 14 of the Act, was caused to be opened and the study

materials and hall ticket of the 3rd petitioner were permitted to be taken

out. The only case of the petitioners is that, the movables inside the

building exclusively belong to the petitioners and that the petitioners

may be permitted to retrieve them.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/landlord

submits that, some of the movables in the premises belong to the 3rd

respondent and that the said respondent does not have any objection

in permitting the petitioners to take out their movables, to be effected in

presence of the 3rd respondent.

W.P. (C) No. 15682 of 2010
: 2 :

4. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that, the

Bank does have any objection at all for releasing the movables, subject

to the consensus between the 3rd respondent and the petitioners i.e the

landlord and the tenants.

5. In the above said circumstances, the petitioners are permitted

to take out the concerned movables kept in the premises, which are not

objected otherwise by the respondents. This shall be caused to be

done by the respondent Bank in presence of the 3rd respondent. The

date and time concerned for facilitating such removal shall be let known

by the Bank, both to the petitioners as well as to the third respondent

forthwith, at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

kmd