Kerala High Court
Philomina Gigi vs The Executive Inspector on 29 October, 2010
Author: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 633 of 2010(D)
1. PHILOMINA GIGI, AGED 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE EXECUTIVE INSPECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.556,
3. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER,
4. MR.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :29/10/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 633 of 2010-D
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The grievance raised by the petitioner herein is that at the instance of the second respondent Bank proceedings have been initiated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules for attachment of the property belonging to her husband. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent has taken a loan from the Urban Co-operative Bank and instead of proceeding against the 4th respondent, respondents 1 to 3 have proceeded against the petitioner and her husband. According to the petitioner, her husband has not taken any loan by mortgaging the property in which House No.II/479 is situated.
2. Ext.P1 is the copy of the E.A. Demand Notice issued to the husband of the petitioner and Ext.P2 is the copy of the notice under Rule 81
(b) of the Co-operative Societies Rules.
3. The Bank has filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is averred in the counter affidavit that the loan was taken by the petitioner's husband. The property covered by Ext.P3 document belonging to the 4th respondent was given as security for the loan availed by the husband of the petitioner and wpc 633/2010 2 therefore the respondents are competent to proceed against the mortgaged property. It is further averred in para 4 that the Bank has no intention to proceed against the property belonging to the petitioner and the Bank also does not intend to take possession of the movable property of the petitioner. But the respondents can proceed against the property, movable and immovable, belonging to the husband of the petitioner who is a defaulter. From para 5 of the counter affidavit, it is clear that the husband of the petitioner has availed a loan to the tune of Rs.2,75,000/- which was granted as per the decision of the committee of the Bank dated 27.11.1998. The property belonging to the 4th respondent described in Ext.P3 document, has been mortgaged. Ext.R2(a) is the copy of the application and Ext.R2(b) is the copy of the surety bond executed by the 4th respondent. The husband of the petitioner never repaid the amount due to the Bank which led to the filing of an arbitration case, viz. A.R.C. No.2007/2000 and Ext.R2(c) is the copy of the award. Thereafter, execution proceedings have been initiated in E.P.No.932/2009 and notice was issued to the petitioner's husband and the surety.
4. Evidently, therefore there is no cause for the petitioner to file this writ petition. It is only an attempt to prolong the execution proceedings. Already there is an award passed by the Arbitrator and the remedy of the wpc 633/2010 3 defaulter and the surety, if they had some grievance against the award, was to challenge the same in appeal before the Tribunal. The matter arises in execution of the award.
5. In the light of the assurance that no property of the petitioner is being proceeded with, there is no grievance for the petitioner also. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. If, at a later point of time, any property of the petitioner, movable or immovable is sought to be attached and sold, the petitioner will be free to challenge it before the appropriate forum. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/