High Court Karnataka High Court

Syndicate Bank vs K Kunhambu Nair S/O Komal Gurukkal on 5 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Syndicate Bank vs K Kunhambu Nair S/O Komal Gurukkal on 5 December, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
!N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 573 DAY OF DECEMBER, 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN   * *

WRIT PETITION No.13g73 0.52 2005   

BETWEEN

SYNDICATE BANK " _ 
A BANK CONSTITUTED UNDERVV 
THE CENTRAL ACT 5 OF 1970____ "  
HAVING ITS HEAD OFF'I.C.E AT "   

MANImLTaaTA1Is:TER;¢;1,IA--A'~8RANv::H

AT HAMPANAi{a'If_1'A, M..'_L0VRE, ;

REP B'? P';V.M.A_LL=YA, '(:HTi.EI'«' _

MANAGER ASSET RECOVERY

MANAGEMENT BRANCH  

JASMINAE MANSION I FLR J.C.RD, B'LORE----2
~  * . V  PETITIONER

» ;('ey .T'U§{AEAM s PA}, ADV.)

1 " :4: KUNHAMBU NAIR
'*3/is KOMAL GURUKKAL
: 4_ AGED ABOUT 79 YRS,
 PROPRIETOR, GOKULAM
' !NDUSTRIES 85 saw MILLS, 302.0012
MANGALORE-575006,
PRESENTLY R/A GOKULAM
90:-3'1' KARINDALAM VIA NILESHWAR,
HGSADURGA, KASARGOD DIST,
KERALA STATE i_@\
J



10

AMAR KUNHI AMMA
w/0 LATE KUNHIKOMAN

R/A POST KARINDALAM VIA; u.1LEsH\iiA'R--:    

HOSADURGA, KASARGOD I:)IS'I'_ '  

K BALAGOPALAN _
S/C: LATE KUNHIKOMW--.... .   
R/A GANESH SADAN   ._ 
P.O.KANNAKAD, KASAR(_}_OD_1}I_ST '

K MADANAGOPA§--..A.N_A g  ,
S/O LATE KUNHIx0.MA.N  
R/A GANESH samm  J V ' 
P.0.KANNAKAD,;KAs1;z2Go'Dj;9;sT':~

K %      

S10 14%-'E   nmmmn

2R/A may :s;AR1NpALAMjv1A NILESHWAR
Hpsmnrmg. KASARC:OD DIST

K IéMAGoi>ALA_N' sfo LATE KUNHIKOMAN

;' :21». ;=>0s'If'KAR1NDALAM VIA NILESHWAR
~  HQSADUR'GA.,...i<?ASARGOD DIST

 SHARTHA KUMARI D/O LATE KUNHIKOMAN

'  *Ri*A.PQ'sfIi~KAR1NDAmM VIA NILESHWAR
-  HOS/ADA[:JRGA, KASARGOD DIST

DELETED

KQJAYALAXM: D/O LATE KUNHIKOMAN

 A POSI' KARINDALAM VIA NILESHWAR DELETED
* =  HOSADURG, KASARGOD DIST

 K RAJALAXMI D/O LATE KUNHIKOMAN

R/A POST KARINDALAM VIA NILESHWAR DELETED
HOSADURGA, KASARGOD DIST

THE COURT OF' ?RINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
(JUNIOR DIVISION 85 JMFC
MAD{KERI -- 5'71 201.

DELETED

9

*~;,



11

12

13

I4

15

B T DINESH S/0 B1DDATANpATH1a_mAiAi_§:    
AGED ABOUT43 YRS "  ._  -:' . '
KOLAKERI VILLAGE   ..

NAPOKLU NAD, MADIKERI TQ 

PRATAP CHETTIAPPA    
DIRECTOR, M/S SKANDA'EX!-?(IRTS'  3
21/14, CRAIG PARK LAY"0*U'i"   

M.G.ROAD, BAN.GAL0;RE;-2, "   _

AND R/A 'sKANDA'*,,  V:T*'mJsAALLYA

ROAD, BANGALQREj--1.V A  "

K01.'mc;u i).Is.'1'RIcj_:*.I_'_ T"  '
FORT, f9';A§')IKER1_V-5.?'_-J 201'

THE D!:'.P'L¥f1':"-'}r'(3Ci*.!~dI€/II'E"§SI':_" TTETT 

TAT;-:2 "i*A?£J_SII:;)JAR' % ' * 

é\w!ADIK.ERif'I'..Q'A  T.  
MADTKERT-5'za12o--.1t " 

T THE"PA:vENuE':NVSPECr0R
5 BHAGANLAAEDALA

"  1«;Q1;AQU DIST-571 247

 L»  _

A _ w1;LAGE ACCOUNTANT
. KUN.DA.CI-fERI VILLAGE

.  BHAGAMANDALA, MADIKERI TQ
 I<I.{:f)i)A-GU mgr-571247

THE RECOVERY OFFICER-I

V   QEBTS RECOVERY TRHBUNAL

V   KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE

BANGALORE--1 RI.-ES {iomggrwg

  (By Sri. N.B. VISHWANATH, AGA FOR R-- 13 TO R-16,

SR1. P.K. PONNAPPA, ADV. FOR R-1,
SR1. K. SUMAN, ADV. FOR R-2,

SR}. A.K. SUBBAIAH, ABV. FOR R-1 I
CREST LAW PARTNERS, ADVS. FOR Rd)

N



THIS WRIT PETITION Is FILES UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYIN--C3r TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R10 IN C.C.!iQ{"«435..1v3

OF I993 AND C.().N0. 3514 OF 1993 
31.5.2002 DIRECT REVENUE RECOVERY IN 'R.$sR_-E'c 3r  c:.RI*«.*u '
THE COMPENSATION AWARDED IR THE  A'
THE R11 AND CONSEQUENTLY:'.DEf3L£,}RE._ILLE(§AL=..A£,L

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS I-IE1i.D RU'RsUANT 'I#I4:.EfRE*I*o';; "

THIS PETITION,' COMING' tits  VI+'£).R FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY THE COURT MfiD.E--.'j'H;,E. FOIQLOEVING:

  pefifi6imr,__a.Nafionafiscd Bank, extended financia}

 Iassistagceé '%:t: "i.*1¢ lst respondent along with his bmthcr on

security mortgaged the plantation lands,

V I by IicpO’éIjI: cf title deeds, complying with Section 53(1) of the

H ” of Property Act, 1882. The default in repayment of

I i_’rIé’riIonics Icad to the pefifioncr instituting O.S.No.25{}/83,

T [j ” ROI. 7. I 1.1933, before the I Add]. Civil Judge, Mangalore, D.K.,

a mortgage suit for zccovcxy of Rs.86,72,7’78.?’5 with interest

at 20% p.a., which was deemed on 28.1.1989 by drawing up

6
31-05-2002, the Court of the JMFC H Court, Madikeri in

C.C.No.3513/1998 and CC 3514/98, convicted Respondent

No.1 for offences under Section 138 of the 3

Instruments Act and directed the 1st respondent

Rs.10,S0,000/-, and Rs.20,50,000/H-,”‘ «resppectiirieily, -as

compensation to the claimant – R»li1’.__ ‘l’hereafte_rW’ards,

29-11.42003, the JMFC, Madilteririssued a the
Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu ‘compensation
amount awarded to the /1998
and co 3514/199$ {R-1;:1’j” of even date
2941-2003. No.1 filed an

application it to recall the Warrant in
respect of ice_rit7a_in she claimed one-half share

and accordinglypubyiorder”dated 16-04-2004, the warrant

i'”ecal’ledt inso farwas one~»half share in the Said lands.

Bank addressed a letter dated 25~»O6-

2004=.t_o th.e~l§eVenue authorities — Respondent No.14 Seeking

‘««___i11formation’about the lands mortgaged in favour of the Bank

ii that the lands were sold pursuant to the

“—i,i:i2vari”ant issued by the Magistrate, whence the Tahsildar, by

};,:t<l

7
letter dated 28-07-2004, called upon the counsel for the

petitioner to produce the mortgaged documents whichvvas

responded to by letter dated 6-8-2004 of the said

3. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, after havingpiissueidl’ it

amended Recovery Certificate in favour ‘of’th–ie p.etiti.oner’v–on

17-09-2004, certified that the petiti.en’er”‘§vaie*–

recover Rs.6,71,43,801.96/–, lianid..V_pdirected’ the ‘?R]e’eevery
Officer to recover the said Sum’-,””‘rbP1i.S’Vl%VaS foilioweddby the
efforts on the part of the pp. Respondent

No.17 by issuingpnotice :ef”ae’tfnehdj’e.aated.Ls’0-09-2004 and

the request – “Chiief lVi’an’ager, Asset Recovery
Management l3ranch’fofi th4e’i’peiti_tioner by letters dated 29-11-

2004, 24-12’-2004,25-0V2-2.0005 and 31-03-2005. The 17:12

respo’ri’dent hvavini5g”‘fai_1edv to evince interest in the matter of

ifirecovery ‘thee __monies due under the certificate, has

resulted petition to quash:–

ii(i}..l*t§_1ne proceedings in C.C.No.3513/1998 and

14/ 1998 and the direction for revenue recovery in

Vrespect of compensation awarded to Respondent No.11 and

M

8

to declare illegal all further proceedings thereto; (ii) to

declare the sale held by Respondents 13 to 16 as illegal and

not binding on the petitioner — Bank and declare….t_lia.t”$~egl” 3

petitioner is entitled to request Respondent to.j_no’til+l’y

the mortgaged properties including ischedule’

for sale by public auction; (iii) for a writ of l;_nAa11darn’us.g l’

directing Respondent No.7 to in-itiate steps’ to the
debt due to the petitioner :”–a.l3anlz.l.””‘ * it

4. There is no dispute by way of

mortgage of the “properties que’s.tjio1f1 in favour of the

petitioner-“isi’notjjydiscfliargedb Th”e’1’e’is also no dispute that
the decree obtainedbylthellipetitioner is a mortgage decree in

respect of the virrgirrzoy’-ablefiiiproperties, subject matter of

mortygage: favour”of__the petitioner, as security for the due

1.7.rep.aymen_t”of’t.he monies owing by the 1st respondent. Yet

agai.n;11l there;— no dispute that the proceedings in

3514/ 1998 are proceedings independent

any._right of the petitioner and relate to offences committed

respondent having no relation whatsoever to the

“claim of the petitioner. So also, the warrant issued by the

M

9

JMFC, Madikeri to the Deputy Commissioner to sell the

properties belonging to the 1st respondent and remit the

sale proceeds to the JMFC to be made over to 3

No.11 as compensation cannot but be said to ._:1ega1.iianid’

valid. In the circumstances, thefiprayer?to.;quashVithe

proceedings in C.C.Nos.3513 and 352142/ii1*9y98

to the petitioner.

5. The properties subject matter charge’ by ‘Way of a
mortgage culminating in the favour of the

petitioner cannot «butj be said beVisui3jectiif:;oi the petitioner’s

right over”i’tl1ea:s;aidii::prop’erty in of Section 52 of the
Transferiof If that is so, the 1731

respondent T–*..Recoveryi’.Offi.eier was not justified in mulling

overV_”tl3i+.e request of the-_ petitioner to execute the certificate

i”–_Vb’earing for recovery of the monies clue to the

petitioner,i iirijaccordance with law. The petitioner having

jestabliisheda right to secure his monies by execution of the

i::C=ert’ifi.cateii issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the

on the part of Respondent No.17 in not taking any

“action to comply with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts

M

10

Due to Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the

petitioner is entitled to the issue of a writ of mandamusfi

6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed I’

writ of mandamus shall ensue to Respondent”~-..No§A_i1″7i” to

execute the Certificate bearing DCI5

2004 AnneXure–“H”, forthwith in, accordance with..i.a.iisf’; I’

It is needless to state thatitliehiideposit the
State Government with iiifijffipcer the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, I3ang!alor,e,i ‘amount after

deducting the a.rn’c’~u_ifi*t paid ,;to.«’R»”1 vcopinpensation, from

out of the _proceeds.frorri’.the sale of the properties in
question, is__ 4’d,irec’ted”:tc:_4be_Taccounted for by the Recovery

Officer; ~I_r1 Words’, the sale is set aside, the said

ainount in’ deposit isvidiirected to be refunded to the auction

” I

Sd/-3
fudge

Ks