IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18275 of 2010(H)
1. JOHN KENNADI, S/O.SELVAMANI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. I.C.I.C.I.BANK LIMITED,
... Respondent
2. SUSHEELA.G, VIJI VIHAR, M.P.V/150,
3. SIBI.K, VIJI VIHAR, M.P.V/150,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
For Respondent :SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :21/06/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
--------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 18275 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is a stranger to the loan transaction has
approached this Court because of the coercive steps taken by the 1st
respondent Bank for causing possession of the property over which the
security interest has been created by the respondents 2 and 3 while
availing a loan.
2. The factual possession as given in the Writ Petition is that,
the respondents 2 and 3 had availed a loan from the 1st respondent Bank,
creating security interest over the property in question. But since the
repayment was not effected on time, the Bank proceeded with steps under
the SARFAESI Act; pursuant to which the physical possession of the
property was taken over.
3. The petitioner, who is residing nearby, does not have proper
access to his property, to take the vehicle bearing No. KL 01 AK 2678
(TATA ACE CLB) owned by the petitioner and hence he used to keep the
vehicle in the court yard of the respondents 2 and 3, with their permission.
But in the course of the steps taken by the respondent Bank for taking the
physical possession of the secured assets, the above vehicle of the
petitioner which was lying parked in the court yard of the respondents 2
2
WP(C) No. 18275/2010
and 3 was also wrongly taken into custody. Despite filing a petition before the
concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for causing the release of the vehicle, it
has not turned to be fruitful as borne by Ext.P4; which made the petitioner to
approach this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents do not have any right or interest with regard to the vehicle and
that it does not form a property over which the security interest has been
created by anybody.
5. The learned standing counsel for the Bank submits on instructions
that the possession of the vehicle was taken over due to some confusion and
mistake; simultaneously adding that the Bank does not have any objection to
cause the vehicle to be released. It is also stated that the vehicle is still in the
courtyard, where it was left by the petitioner. The learned counsel further
submits that necessary arrangements will be made to cause the vehicle to be
handed over to the petitioner forthwith, at any rate, within two days.
In view of the above submission, no further orders are required to be
passed in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is closed, recording the
undertaking given by the 1st respondent Bank.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc