High Court Kerala High Court

Lakshmi.K. vs South Indian Bank on 31 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
Lakshmi.K. vs South Indian Bank on 31 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 10388 of 2009(P)


1. LAKSHMI.K., AGED 60 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SHIBUKUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. SOUTH INDIAN BANK,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM)

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :31/03/2009

 O R D E R
                THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J
                  ...........................................
                  WP(C).NO. 10388               OF 2009
                  ............................................
         DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF MARCH, 2009

                                JUDGMENT

The first petitioner is the mother of a soldier, who is stated

to have died in a war. This is evidenced by Ext.P1. The second

petitioner is his brother. They were provided a loan by the

respondent to run a LPG Agency in the name of the first

petitioner on account of the demise of her son. Petitioners state

that they belong to Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes. The fact

remains that the business failed. There are cases filed by the

petitioners against two employees alleging fraud. That is gaining

attention of the police department, it is stated.

2. There are two items of properties which form the security

interest. Item No.1 is a residential building and item No.2 is a

piece of land with a commercial building. The second item

belongs to the second petitioner. The petitioners state that if that

building and land are sold at the first instance, the petitioners

would save their residence. The bank points out that the

commercial building has tenants. Even then the provisions of

WP(C) 10388/2009 2

SARFAESI Act are fairly enough to deal with any situation that is

created in relation to the sale.

In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is ordered

directing that the bank will first proceed to sell B schedule in

Ext.P6 and if funds are not generated by that sale, the bank will

be at liberty to further proceed with A schedule property.

However, the proclamation could be done together to save

further expenditure and petitioners will not be dispossessed from

the residential premises as of now. However in the event of A

schedule also being sold, the petitioners will deliver vacant

possession to the bank.

THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE

lgk/1/4