Kerala High Court
The State Bank Of India vs The Chief Judicial Magistrate on 23 September, 2021
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 11635 OF 2021
PETITIONER :
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER/
CHIEF MANAGER,
STRESSES ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH (S.A.R.B.),
LMS COMPOUND, OPPOSITE MUSEUM WEST GATE,
VIKAS BHAVAN (P.O.),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033.
BY ADV JAWAHAR JOSE
RESPONDENTS :
1 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
COURT COMPLEX, VIDYA NAGAR,
KOLLAM, PIN-691013.
(IMPLEADED AS THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY UNDER
SECTION 14 OF THE SARFAESI ACT)
2 NAVAS T.,
S/O. THAJUDEEN,
RESIDING AT ANCHUVILA HOUSE,
MEKKONE, CHANDANATHOPPE (P.O.),
KOLLAM, PIN-691014.
3 SHYLAJA B.,
W/O. NAWAS T.,
PROPRIETRIX, NASA IMPORTS AND EXPORTS CASHEWS,
RESIDING AT ANCHUVILA HOUSE,
MEKKONE, CHANDANATHOPPE (P.O.),
KOLLAM, PIN-691014.
W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:2:-
BY ADV NIDHI BALACHANDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 16.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.17918/2021, THE COURT ON
23.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:3:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 17918 OF 2021
PETITIONER :
NAVAS T.,
S/O. THAJUDHEEN,
ANJUVILA HOUSE,
MEKKONE, CHANDANATHOPE (P.O),
KOLLAM - 691014.
BY ADV NIDHI BALACHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS :
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
KILIKOLLUR BRANCH, P.B.NO.4,
KARAMANA COMPLEX, KILIKOLLUR (P.O),
KOLLAM - 691004
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH,
LMS COMPOUND,
OPPOSITE TO MUSEUM WEST GATE,
VIKAS BHAVAN (P.O),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
BY ADV JAWAHAR JOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.11635/2021,
THE COURT ON 23.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:4:-
"C.R."
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.11635 & 17918 of 2021
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2021
JUDGMENT
These two writ petitions relate to the proceedings initiated by the bank for enforcement of the security interest. Petitioner in W.P. (C) No.11635 of 2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank' for short) challenges Ext.P10 order issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam while petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17918 of 2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'the borrower' for short) seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent for consideration of his application for settlement of the loan liability by granting a breathing time for him to repay the amounts and to stay all recovery proceedings till a decision is taken on the application. Since both these matters are connected, they were heard together.
2. Petitioner's wife had availed two loans from the bank to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/- as a vehicular loan and Rs.4,00,00,000/- as a working capital loan for her cashew trading business. Petitioner was W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:5:- the guarantor for those loans. Due to default in repayment, the loans were classified as NPA on 28.01.2019. Pursuant to the bank issuing notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('the SARFAESI Act' for short), possession of the assets were symbolically taken on 17.01.2020. On the date of filing of the writ petitions, liability under the two loans was Rs.4,78,97,589.88.
3. Through a petition dated 26.02.2020, the bank approached the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, invoking section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. By Ext.P2 order dated 26.02.2020 in M.C. No.225 of 2020, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate appointed two Advocates as Commissioners to take possession of five different items of properties. It is pointed out by the bank that the Advocate Commissioner appointed to take possession of item Nos.1 and 2 has not so far given any notice to comply with the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while the second Advocate Commissioner took possession of two items of properties leaving out item No.4.
4. In the meantime, the borrower approached this Court seeking an instalment facility for repayment of the loan liability and through Ext.P3 judgment dated 02.09.2019, this Court granted liberty W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:6:- to the borrower to pay off the outstanding amounts in twelve equal monthly instalments, commencing from 5.11.2019. The bank has pleaded that they invoked the authority of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act since the borrower failed to even comply with the directions of this Court for payment in instalment.
5. In the meantime, the borrower moved an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by filing C.M.P. No.548 of 2021 in M.C. No. 225 of 2020 seeking a direction to the bank not to proceed with the dispossession of the borrower and to direct the Advocate Commissioner not to execute the order till a decision is taken by the committee appointed by the Government for a revival of the cashew industry.
6. In spite of detailed objections filed by the bank pointing out the absence of jurisdiction with the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass orders or even to hear the borrower, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by a detailed order produced as Ext.P10, dismissed the application of the borrower. While rejecting the application, the learned Magistrate imposed conditions for taking possession of the secured asset No.4. The bank has challenged the W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:7:- imposition of conditions No. (b), (h) and (k) in Ext.P10 order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. A declaration is also sought that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act does not have a power of adjudication or a power to direct identification of property especially when there is no dispute on identity. For the purpose of reference, last paragraph of the order impugned containing all the conditions imposed is extracted below:
"8. In the result, the application is dismissed without cost and the original petitioner/bank is allowed to take possession of the secured asset no-4 as follows;
a) The authorised officer of original petitioner/State Bank of India is allowed to take possession of secured asset item No.4 property with the aid of an Advocate commissioner and Village Officer, Kottamkara.
b) Adv. Commissioner and Village Officer shall identify item No.4 property and buildings in consonance with the title deeds, revenue records and survey particulars pertaining to the said immovable property and file a report inclusive of the plan prepared by the village officer in this regard.
c) On identification of the secured asset no-4 as per procedures in clause-b of this order, Adv.
Commissioner shall take possession of the secured assets and permanent structures therein by preparing an inventory and mahazar and handover the same to the authorised officer.
d) SHO concerned is directed to give necessary police protection to the commissioner and village officer to identify the property and take possession of the same as per law.
W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:8:-
e) In case of any resistance from the respondents or strangers in taking possession, sanction is accorded to the advocate commissioner to break open the locks of the buildings and take possession of the item No.4 property by preparing an inventory of the articles stocked inside the building.
f) Commissioner shall report about the details of the inhabitants in the building together with the data of articles stocked inside the house.
g) The petitioner to pay an additional commissioner's batta of Rs.7,000/- to the commissioner and file a memo in this regard. Adv. Reli Dev is appointed as the Advocate Commissioner.
h) The commissioner shall issue a notice to the respondents or their counsel 7 days before executing the order as per clause (b) of this order for identifying the secured asset as item No. 4 property.
Commissioner to issue a notice to the respondents 15 days before executing clause (c) of the order to take possession of the secured asset.
i) Communicate the order to Village Officer and Circle Inspector concerned.
j) Adv. Commissioner and officers appointed for enforcing this order shall comply the health protocols issued by the Union of India and State of Kerala as on date of local inspection.
k) Both sides are at liberty to pursue one time settlement procedures, if any as per efforts taken by the committee formed vide decision in PLGEA-F2/21/2021 dt. 15.02.2021 of state of Kerala and intimate the result to this court within 4 weeks. All the procedures under clause (c) of this order shall be implemented after a time period of 4 weeks.
7. In W.P.(C) No.17918 of 2021 filed by the borrower, it is W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:9:- stated that though the loan as mentioned earlier was taken by the borrower, due to various reasons including worsening of conditions in cashew factories, he could not repay the amounts due to the bank. It is the case of the borrower that though he had submitted representations before the bank for one-time settlement, which is produced as Ext.P5 and finally by Ext.P7, the bank did not respond. It was also pointed out that in Ext.P7, petitioner has offered to settle the entire arrears to the bank, by offering a lumpsum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores only), which he undertakes to pay by 30th September, 2021, in complete and final settlement of all amounts due to the bank. Thus, the borrower seeks a direction to the bank to take appropriate action on Ext.P7.
8. I have heard Adv. Jawahar Jose, learned counsel for the bank and Adv. Nidhi Balachandran, learned counsel for the borrower.
9. It was submitted by Adv. Jawahar Jose that Ext.P10 order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate imposing conditions for taking over secured asset No.4 was ex facie without jurisdiction or authority.
10. According to the learned counsel, once an order was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, as is seen from Ext.P2, he becomes functus officio and cannot thereafter pass any W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:10:- orders. It was also contended that Ext.P10 order was issued on an application filed by the borrower which itself is an act in excess of jurisdiction. He relied upon the decisions in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and Others [(2014) 6 SCC 1], Authorised Officer, Indian Bank v. D.Visalakshi and Another [(2019) 20 SCC 47], Union Bank of India, Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2010) SCC Online Bombay 919], K.Arockiyaraj v. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District [(2013) SCC Online Madras 2570] and C.Bright v. District Collector and Others [(2021) 2 SCC 392].
11. On the other hand, Adv. Nidhi Balachandran, learned counsel for the borrower submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued Ext.P4 order (Ext.P10 order in W.P.(C) No.11635 of 2021) to enable the bank to recover the secured interest and the same cannot be found fault with. It was also submitted that all that the borrower seek is a breathing time to enable him to repay the loans. It was also argued that, petitioner wife was carrying on a lucrative business, but due to reasons beyond his control, the business fell into troubled waters.
W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:11:-
12. I have considered the rival contentions. On 26.02.2020, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had passed an order under section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act directing the Advocate Commissioners to take possession of properties scheduled in the application. The properties scheduled in the application were the secured interest created by the borrower. Thereafter, the borrower filed an application claiming the relief not to dispossess him and for a direction not to execute the order, till a decision is taken by the Committee [Kerala Government has constituted a three member Committee to consider measures to revive the cashew industry and solve their financial issues]. Ext.P10 impugned order was issued pursuant to such an application.
13. While considering the validity of Ext.P10 order, it may be apposite to delve into the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act . As per section 14(1), a secured creditor may request the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate (may be read as Chief Judicial Magistrate) within whose jurisdiction the secured asset is situated to take possession. When such a request is received in writing, then such Magistrate shall take possession and forward such W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:12:- asset and the documents to the secured creditor. The first proviso to section 14(1) mandates the requisites needed in the application while the second proviso deals with the nature of orders that are to be passed by the Magistrate. It is relevant to extract section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, which is as follows:
"14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.- (1) Where the possession of any secured assets is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured assets is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured assets, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him-
(a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and
(b) forward such asset and documents to the secured creditor. Provided that any application by the secured creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorised officer of the secured creditor, declaring that-
(i) the aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the total claim of the Bank as on the date of filing the application;
(ii) the borrower has created security interest over various W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:13:- properties and that the Bank or Financial Institution is holding a valid and subsisting security interest over such properties and the claim of the Bank or Financial Institution is within the limitation period;
(iii) the borrower has created security interest over various properties giving the details of properties referred to in sub-clause (ii) above;
(iv) the borrower has committed default in repayment of the financial assistance granted aggregating the specified amount;
(v) consequent upon such default in repayment of the financial assistance the account of the borrower has been classified as a non-performing asset;
(vi) affirming that the period of sixty days notice as required by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13, demanding payment of the defaulted financial assistance has been served on the borrower;
(vii) the objection or representation in reply to the notice received from the borrower has been considered by the secured creditor and reasons for non-acceptance of such objection or representation had been communicated to the borrower;
(viii) the borrower has not made any repayment of the financial assistance in spite of the above notice and the Authorised Officer is, therefore, entitled to take possession of the secured assets under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 13 read with section 14 of the principal Act;
(ix) that the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder had been complied with:
Provided further that on receipt of the affidavit from the Authorised Officer, the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall after satisfying the contents of the affidavit pass suitable orders for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets within a period of thirty days from the date of application:W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:14:-
Provided further that if no order is passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate within the said period of thirty days for reasons beyond his control, he may, after recording reasons in writing for the same, pass the order within such also period but not exceeding in aggregate sixty days.
Provided also that the requirement of filing affidavit stated in the first proviso shall not apply to proceeding pending before any District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, on the date of commencement of this Act."
14. Similarly section 14(1-A) inserted by Amendment Act 1 of 2013 and section 14(2) are also relevant and they are extracted as follows:
"14(1-A) The District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may authorise any officer subordinate to him,-
(i) to take possession of such assets and documents relating thereto; and
(ii) to forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor.
14(2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of subsection (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary."
15. A reading of the provisions of section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, as amended, leaves no room for doubt that the Magistrate authorised under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act exercises a W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:15:- function which is peculiar to the specific statute. The Magistrate under section 14 is exercising a power which is sui generis. The legislative intention is evident from the first proviso to section 14 that the Magistrate can pass orders after satisfying the contents of the affidavit, for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets. At the stage of passing orders the authorised Magistrate is not even mandated to issue notice to the borrower or even hear the borrower. The conferment of power upon the authorised Magistrate is with a singular focus to take possession of the secured asset. The Magistrate is also conferred with powers to ensure compliance of taking possession by even resorting to steps by the use of force, as is required in his opinion.
16. The authorised Magistrate will have to act strictly in conformity with the statutory conferment of powers under section 14 and there is no scope for any application by the borrower for any purpose whatsoever. The borrower cannot maintain any application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act nor can the borrower invoke the jurisdiction of the authorised Magistrate under section 14 of the Act. Further, the statute does not contemplate an adjudicatory order to be passed by the Magistrate or to consider the application as in a W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:16:- judicial process. The procedure prescribed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is part of a non-judicial process. The said power is no doubt peculiar to the special statute.
17. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision in Authorised Officer, Indian Bank v. D.Visalakshi and Another [(2019) 20 SCC 47] wherein it has been held that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while exercising the powers under section 14 is exercising a power which is akin to an administrative or executive function and it presupposes only a quasi judicial enquiry and not a judicial process. It was further observed that the enquiry contemplated under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is a sui generis enquiry and that it does not result in adjudication of inter se rights of the parties in respect of the subject property or of the transaction.
18. In a recent decision in C.Bright v. District Collector and Others [(2021) 2 SCC 392], while considering the question whether the time limit specified in section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory or directory, it was observed in paragraph 21 as follows:
"21. The Act was enacted to provide a machinery for empowering banks and financial institutions, so that they may have the power to take possession of secured assets and to sell them. The DRT Act was first enacted to W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:17:- streamline the recovery of public dues but the proceedings under the said Act have not given desirous results. Therefore, the Act in question was enacted. This Court in Mardia Chemicals, Transcore and Hindon Forge (P) Ltd. has held that the purpose of the Act pertains to the speedy recovery of dues, by banks and financial institutions. The true intention of the legislature is a determining factor herein. Keeping the objective of the Act in mind, the time- limit to take action by the District Magistrate has been fixed to impress upon the authority to take possession of the secured assets. However, inability to take possession within time-limit does not render the District Magistrate functus officio. The secured creditor has no control over the District Magistrate who is exercising jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act for public good to facilitate recovery of public dues. Therefore, Section 14 of the Act is not to be interpreted literally without considering the object and purpose of the Act. If any other interpretation is placed upon the language of Section 14, it would be contrary to the purpose of the Act. The time-limit is to instill a confidence in creditors that the District Magistrate will make an attempt to deliver possession as well as to impose a duty on the District Magistrate to make an earnest effort to comply with the mandate of the statute to deliver the possession within 30 days and for reasons to be recorded within 60 days. In this light, the remedy under Section 14 of the Act is not rendered redundant if the District Magistrate is unable to handover the possession. The District Magistrate will still be enjoined upon the duty to facilitate delivery of possession at the earliest."
19. In view of the proposition laid down as above, it is clear that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate will not become functous officio by issuing an order under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and also that the jurisdiction under section 14 is only to render assistance to facilitate delivery of possession at the earliest.
20. A perusal of Ext.P10 order reveals that the learned Chief W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:18:- Judicial Magistrate has imposed various conditions including those in the nature of directions, directing the parties to pursue procedures for one time settlement, directions to file report on the basis of revenue records and survey and plan prepared by the Village Officers and the like. It is appropriate to note that Ext.P10 order in fact, came to be passed on a petition filed by the borrower, which itself is, as discussed earlier, without jurisdiction.
21. However, petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11635 of 2021 has challenged only conditions No.(b), (h) and (k). In the said circumstances, I quash Ext.P10 order in W.P.(C) No.11635 of 2021 to the extent of conditions No.(b), (h) and (k) and also declare that the Magistrates authorized under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act have no power of adjudication.
22. In W.P(c) No. 17918 of 2021, the relief is claimed to direct consideration of the settlement proposed put forth in Ext.P7. Adv. Nidhi Balachandran, learned counsel for the borrower, vehemently submitted that if an breathing time is given the loans could be cleared. It is to be appreciated that the bank had offered one time settlement earlier also, as is seen from Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.17918 of 2021 dated 10.05.2021. It is submitted across the Bar that yet W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:19:- another one time settlement was offered by the bank and since the offer was not accepted in its entirety by the borrower, the same was also rejected on 18.08.2011, due to the failure of the borrower to abide by the terms of the offer. In the counter affidavit filed by the bank after the hearing was completed, it is pointed out that the Bank had offered repeated settlement proposals, including waiver of amounts, and still petitioner could not repay the amounts. It was also submitted during the hearing that the present request in Ext.P7 is made just 13 days after the earlier offer was rejected.
23. However, it was fairly submitted on behalf of the bank that out of 5.61 Crores now due, the bank is willing to consider a new one time settlement, by waiving an amount of Rs.1.25 Crores from the aforesaid amount, on condition that borrower deposits an amount of Rs.3 Crores on or before 30.09.2021. In the counter-affidavit also, it is stated that the deposit must be before 30-09-2021.
24. I find from Ext.P7 that the borrower himself had offered to deposit the sum of Rs.3 Crores on 30.9.2021, of course, as a means of settling the entire amount. In spite of all the above occurrences, since the bank has come forward with the present proposal, I am of the view that if the borrower deposits an amount of Rs.3 Crores on or W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:20:- before 18.10.2021 and files an application for settlement of the balance amount due under the proposed one-time settlement offer as stated in the counter affidavit (proposal must be between rupees 4.35 crores and rupees 4.40 crores), the bank shall waive the amount of Rs.1.25 Crores from the remaining liability as offered and shall also consider the grant of reasonable instalments for repayment of the balance amount fixed as per the one time settlement, the parties may mutually agree.
25. I accordingly dispose of W.P.(C) No.17918 of 2021 directing the petitioner herein to deposit an amount of Rs.3 Crores on or before 18.10.2021 and thereafter to file an application for settlement of the balance amount under the one time settlement scheme proposed. If the borrower complies with the aforesaid conditions, the bank shall grant a waiver of Rs.1.25 Crores, as agreed to, and consider the proposal for one time settlement within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of such application and grant reasonable instalments as agreed to. All coercive proceedings initiated against the property of the borrower shall be kept in abeyance to enable the borrower to comply with the conditions. It is clarified that if the borrower fails to abide by any of the terms W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:21:- mentioned above, the bank shall be free to approach the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for appropriate orders in enforcing the secured interest. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall, if such an application is filed, pass orders thereon within thirty days.
In view thereof, W.P.(C) No.11635 of 2021 is allowed and W.P. (C) No.17918 of 2021 is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:22:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11635/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
26.2.2020 FILED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
KOLLAM.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2020
IN M.C.NO.225/2020 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.9.2019
IN WP(C) NO.23632/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.10.2019
IN R.P.NO.894/2019 IN WP(C)
NO.23632/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
8.12.2020 IN WP(C) NO.27311/2020 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT DATED
18.3.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION DATED 8.3.2021 BEARING
NUMBER 548/2021 FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
15.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO THE
CONVENOR OF THE STATE LEVEL BANKERS
COMMITTEE.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED
18.3.2021 TO EXHIBIT P7 BEFORE THE CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM.
W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:23:-
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.4.2021
IN C.M.P.NO.548/2021 IN M.C.NO.225/2020
OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
KOLLAM.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
3.5.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE BANK.
Exhibit P11(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.5.2021
GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P11.
Exhibit P11(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
8.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE BANK.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
9.3.2021 IN WP(C) NO.6132/2021 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
W.P.(C) No.11635 & 17918/21 -:24:-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17918/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
TO THE BANKERS COMMITTEE BY THE
GOVERNMENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
19.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
3.5.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.5.2021
GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
1.6.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER