IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36012 of 2009(V)
1. SAJI SEBASTIAN, SON OF DEVASIA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
... Respondent
2. CHIEF MANAGER (ADV),
For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :07/01/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.36012 OF 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings
under the SARFAESI Act against the property having 8 cents in
extent in resurvey No.220/9-1 of Athirampuzha village of which
the petitioner is the owner. The petitioner is an autorickshaw
driver and he purchased the property by Exhibit P1 sale deed.
Thereafter mutation was effected and Exhibits P2 and P3 are the
copies of tax receipts produced in support of his claim for
possession. It is the case of the petitioner that he had no
transaction with the Bank and therefore, the proceedings are
without any justification.
2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank. It is
submitted that the vendor of the petitioner one Joseph George
had mortgaged an extent of 15.06 Ares of land to the Bank for
availing of loan. The property which was purchased by the
petitioner was also part of the mortgaged property. It is pointed
W.P.(C) No.36012/2009 2
out that the sale that was effected to the petitioner was not
informed to the Bank. It is also submitted that the Bank has
already exempted the petitioner’s property from sale which is
evident from the sale notice dated 10.12.2009 (published in the
New Indian Express, Cochin edition), a copy of which was
submitted before me for perusal. It is further submitted that the
Bank has no intention to proceed against the properties of the
petitioner shown in the relief portion of the writ petition. The
same is recorded.
It is pointed out that a board as shown in Exhibit P4 is
placed in the properties of the petitioner which, according to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, is causing hardship to the
petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submitted
that the same will be removed without any delay. The said
submission is also recorded and appropriate action will be taken
by the Bank in that regard without any further delay.
This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp