Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

Balakrishnan V.A vs The Kozhikode District Co-Operative on 8 June, 2011

Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim

Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 12319 of 2011(L)


1. BALAKRISHNAN V.A, S/O.KANARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :08/06/2011

 O R D E R
                  C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
                  -------------------------------
                 W.P.(C).No.12319 of 2011
                  -------------------------------
           Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011.

                      J U D G M E N T

Considering the effective statutory remedy provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), this Court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, dispossession of the petitioner from the property pursuant to Ext.P6 was directed to be kept in abeyance, through an interim order issued by this Court, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in two equal instalments falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and 31.5.2011.

2. It is conceded that the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions. According to the petitioner, the steps under the SARFAESI Act was initiated without proper compliance of the mandatory procedure and it is not sustainable. However, in view of the remedy provided under Section 17(1) it may not be proper for this Court to entertain 2 W.P.(C).No.12319 of 2011 such challenges in this writ petition. Liberty of the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy is however reserved.

3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy against the impugned proceedings.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/