IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 105 of 2009()
1. SOPHIE VINAY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CANARA BANK, OVERSEAS BRANCH,
... Respondent
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
3. SAVIO, S/O.JIMMY ANTONY,
4. P.T.MATHAI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT.LTD
For Petitioner :SRI.CHACKO GEORGE (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :14/01/2009
O R D E R
J.B. Koshy,Ag.C.J. & V. Giri, J.
————————————–
W.A. No. 105 of 2009
—————————————
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009
Judgment
Koshy,Ag.C.J.
Appellant/Petitioner is the daughter of one guarantor
who had mortgaged her property to secure the facilities granted to
the first respondent bank to M/s.Surya Sea Products. The above
property was proceeded by the authorised officer of the first
respondent bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI
Act). Various contentions were raised before this court with regard
to the sale of the property involved. It is the case of the petitioner
that she was constrained to approach this court as there was no
presiding officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Cochin for long
time. According to the petitioner, she has a good cause on merit.
She questioned even the jurisdiction to take action. Counsel for the
petitioner repelled those contentions and also stated that the land in
question was also sold to third respondent and it was again re-sold
and it is now in the possession of the fourth respondent. We are of
the view that questions under the SARFAESI Act cannot be looked
into on merit by this court in a writ petition. Statutory remedy is
W.A. No.105/2009 2
provided under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. It is also submitted
that there will be regular sitting of the tribunal from 19.1.2009
onwards. Even according to the first respondent, appeal will lie.
We allow the petitioner to file appeal within three weeks from today.
If appeal is filed within three weeks from today, the Debt Recovery
Tribunal shall dispose of the matter on merits after hearing the
concerned parties. Therefore, without expressing any opinion
regarding the merits of the matter, we dispose of the writ appeal for
availing an opportunity for the petitioner to have his alternate
remedy of appeal. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter
untrammelled by the observations in the impugned judgment and if
appeal is filed within three weeks from today, status quo should
continue for a period of another two months for which time
petitioner should get appropriate reliefs from the Debt Recovery
Tribunal.
The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.
J.B.Koshy
Acting Chief Justice
V. Giri
Judge
vaa
W.A. No.105/2009 3
W.A. No.105/2009 4
J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. AND
P.R.RAMACHANDRA
MENON,J.
————————————-
W.A.No. /2006
————————————-
Judgment
Date:14th January, 2009