IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7266 of 2010(G)
1. ABIDE C.H
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,
... Respondent
2. BRANCH MANAGER,NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK
3. MANNAMMED NAHAZ, S/O.BABAKUNHI,
4. M.SALEENA, W/O.MUHAMMED NAHAZ,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
For Respondent :SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :02/06/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 7266 of 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 02nd of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved of the steps
taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act, seeking to
realize the amount stated as due from the borrowers of a loan availed
from the Bank, from whom the petitioner had purchased the property,
without knowing the security interest created over the said property.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the third and fourth
respondents herein had secured a loan from the second respondent
Bank, creating security interest over the property and the petitioner
was a bonafide purchaser.
2. The learned counsel for the Bank, with reference to the
contents of the statement, submits that the Writ Petition is not
maintainable, as the petitioner is a total stranger as far as the Bank is
concerned and the action being pursued by the Bank is only against the
3rd and 4th respondents/borrowers and the property over which security
interest was created, which hence is perfectly in tune with the relevant
provisions of the law. It is also stated that, by virtue of the relevant
provisions of the Act, the rights and liberties of the Bank stands
concluded and secured, notwithstanding anything contained in any
other provisions of law.
W.P. (C) No. 7266 of 2010
: 2 :
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the only
grievance now pressed before this Court is that, the petitioner might be
permitted to clear the liability to the Bank in a phased manner. Despite
the service of notice to the 3rd and 4th respondents, nobody has entered
appearance on their behalf.
4. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and that total outstanding liability will be nearly Rs. 10
lakhs, the petitioner is directed to clear the entire liability, if he wants to
save the property in question, by way of 6 equal monthly installments;
the first of which shall be effected on or before the 20th of June, 2010 to
be followed by the similar installments to be effected on before the 20th
of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings,
stated as being pursued against the petitioner, shall be kept in
abeyance. It is also made clear that, if any default is committed by the
petitioner in satisfying the installments as above, the Bank will be free
to proceed with further steps for realization the entire amount in a lump
sum, from the stage where it stands now. The rights and liberties
between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are left open.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd