Kerala High Court
Thiruvananthapuram District ... vs Union Of India on 17 December, 2018
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY ,THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 40287 of 2018
PETITIONER:
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001,REPRESENTED BY
ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 3RD
FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-
110001.
2 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
P.B.NO.6507,BAKERY JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA-695033,REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL DIRECTOR.
3 NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,
CORE 5A,INDIA HABITAT CENTRE, 3RD -5TH FLOOR, LODHI
ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003 ,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR.
4 CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD,
ZONAL OFFICE, MALANKARA BUILDING COMPLEX, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
OFFICER.
5 INDIA BULLS HOUSING FINANCE LTD,
M-62 AND 63, FIRST FLOOR, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-
110001,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
6 SMT. LINI ZACHARIAH,
INDRAPRASTHAM, KURAVAN KONAM, PATTOM, KOWDIAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.
7 SRI. K.AIYAPPAN,
9-B, SUMMER BREEZE SEASONS, KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIYAR,
WP(C).No. 40287 of 2018
2
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.
BY ADV. SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN, SC FOR R4 & R5
SMT.C.G.PREETHA-CGC, SRI.R.S.KALKURA-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 40287 of 2018
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, which is a District Co-operative Bank, assails certain action taken by respondent 4 and 5 under the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity). The petitioner says that they are tenants under respondent 6 to 7, who are the original borrowers and that they are entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishal Kalsaria Vs. Bank of India & Others ((2016) 3 SCC 762 and Indian Bank Vs. Nippon Enterprises South and Others reported in 2016(15) SCC 79. They say that their rights as a tenant in the property must be recognized and that they be evicted only in terms of law.
2. Even when I hear Sri. Thomas Abraham, the learned counsel for the petitioner as afore, the fact remains that even if the petitioner has a remedy, which I am certain they may have, they can invoke it only before the Debts Recovery Tribunal or such other appropriate forum and not before this court in a writ petition in Article 226 of the Constitution of India, going by the well recognized principles of constraints of jurisdiction, when alternative remedies are available and in particular, being bound by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon ((2010) 8 SCC 110) and followed recently in Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker.
479).
3. Shri Thomas Abraham at this time submits that his client has been WP(C).No. 40287 of 2018 4 constrained to approach this court by filing this writ petition because, they will have to pay a very large Court Fee, if they are to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Further he asserts that Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act cannot be used by the Banks in such an unbirdled fashion and he says that the processes under Section 13(4) cannot become an empty formality.
4. I am afraid that none of these contentions are available to the petitioner to be raised before this court in this writ petition on account of the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy to them under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, particularly taking note of the amendment to section 17(4) (A), which to a large extent answers many of the contentions raised by the petitioners in this case.
5. In the afore circumstances, I close this writ petition without entering in to the merits of any of the contentions raised and leave liberty to the petitioner, subject to the laws and prescriptions of limitation, to approach the alternative forum to invoke and pursue statutory remedies, as are available to them, under the SARFAESI Act.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Ns WP(C).No. 40287 of 2018 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATEd 28.12.2016, EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.4.2018 SENT BY THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
6.12.2018.
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE