High Court Kerala High Court

Vijaya Bank vs Jomon John on 7 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Vijaya Bank vs Jomon John on 7 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35275 of 2009(D)


1. VIJAYA BANK, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JOMON JOHN, RESIDING AT JEES
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUPDT. OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA.

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)

                For Respondent  :SRI.C.S.ULLAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :07/06/2010

 O R D E R
                THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
                                        &
                   S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
                    -------------------------------------------
                    W.P(C).No.35275 OF 2009
                    -------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010


                               JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1.The first respondent filed W.P(C).20150/08 seeking reliefs in

relation to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. That writ

petition was ordered on 24.9.2008. He carried an appeal

against that. As per Ext.P1 judgment dated 24.10.2008, the

Division Bench ordered that appeal, W.A.2101/08.

2.When the appeal was being considered by the Division Bench,

the situation was that the residential building of the first

respondent herein was in the possession of the bank, it having

taken possession under SARFAESI Act proceedings. Before

the Division Bench, an affidavit of undertaking was filed by the

appellant undertaking to deposit an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-

WPC.35275/09.

2

within one month from then and balance within a further

period of three months. This was to provide him an

opportunity to occupy the residential building. The appellant

undertook that if he commits default in remitting any payment,

he shall ultimately hand over possession of the property to the

bank. In spite of serious opposition from the bank, the Bench

acted on that undertaking of the appellant and passed the

following order:

“(i) The appellant shall deposit a sum of

Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only) as

undertaken by him in the affidavit filed before this

Court within a month’s time from today.

(ii) If such deposit is made within the time

granted by this Court, the first respondent Bank is

directed to handover possession of the residential

house situated in Sy.No.782/2-2 of Alappuzha West

Village to the appellant.

(iii) The appellant shall pay the balance of

amount due to the first respondent Bank within the

WPC.35275/09.

3

outer limits of four months from today. If such

payment is not made within the time granted by

this Court, the appellant shall voluntarily hand over

vacant possession of the residential house situated

in Sy.No.782/2-2 of Alappuzha West village to the

first respondent Bank

(iv) If for any reason, the appellant fails to

hand over vacant possession of the residential

house, the first respondent Bank is at liberty to

take possession of the property with the assistance

of the police authorities.

(v) The first respondent Bank shall not effect

sale of the property for a further period of four

months from today.”

3.Direction No.(iv) of the aforesaid order was issued on the basis

of the undertaking of the first respondent herein that he shall

voluntarily hand over possession of the property to the

petitioner herein, in case of failure to pay the amount. That

being part of the judicial order issued by the Division Bench,

WPC.35275/09.

4

acting on the undertaking, the writ petitioner bank is well

founded in requesting for police help since the Bench had

directed that if for any reason there is failure to hand over

vacant possession, the bank will be at liberty to take

possession with assistance of police department.

4.Learned counsel for the first respondent argued that police

force can be brought in only if the Bank initiates fresh

proceedings under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. We repel

this argument for the reason that the Bank had earlier

obtained possession and the first respondent herein was

permitted to occupy it only in terms of the direction of this

Court. That direction was issued by this Court coupled with

the liability of the debtor to voluntarily surrender possession

on failure to pay the amount. This Court had also directed that

the bank would be entitled to take possession with police force

in case of default. That judgment and order have become final

WPC.35275/09.

5

inter partis. We, therefore, overrule the contention of the first

respondent in that regard.

For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed

directing respondents 2 to 4 to forthwith give effect to the

request of the petitioner in Ext.P2.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

Sd/-

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
Judge.

kkb.8/06.