Kerala High Court
Sosamma Abraham vs The State Bank Of Travancore on 30 July, 2008
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22254 of 2008(Y)
1. SOSAMMA ABRAHAM, W/O.ABRAHAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
3. THE ZONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF
4. THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER,
5. VINEETHA SUSAN THOMAS, ADVOCATE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/07/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= =W.P.(C) = = = = = = = = = = = =
No. 22254 OF 2008 Y
= = =
Dated this the 30th day of July 2008
J U D G M E N T
Proceedings initiated by the respondent bank for realising its dues from the petitioner has reached the stage of taking over possession by an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the court, exercising powers under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The prayer of the petitioner was that the mortgaged properties are comprised of a factory building, machineries and also the residential building of the petitioner. According to her, this being her only homestead, she should not be driven out of the house and that the bank can very well realise its dues by proceeding against the factory and machineries which are stated to be worth much more than what is due to the bank.
3. It was on account of this submission, the case was W.P.(C) No. 22254 OF 2008 -2- adjourned and posted to today in order to enable the Standing Counsel for the bank to obtain instructions as to whether it was possible for the bank to proceed against the machineries initially and thereafter, against the residential premises, if necessary. On instructions, the counsel submits that the machineries are pretty old and the valuation shows that it worths only Rs.5,25,000/- as against more than Rs.13 lakhs due from the petitioner. It is also submitted that there is no independent access to the factory building and therefore it may not be practical to dispose of the factory building and machineries, separately.
4. From the submissions made, it was obvious that the bank cannot be directed to proceed against the factory and machineries, leaving the residential house of the petitioner untouched. At that stage counsel for the petitioner offers that she herself will dispose of the factory and machineries, which according to her is worth more than Rs.26 lakhs. It is prayed that if 4 weeks' time is granted, the entire liability will be liquidated. Though I am inclined to give the petitioner a chance to liquidate the debt by disposing of the factory and machineries, since proceedings initiated by the bank has W.P.(C) No. 22254 OF 2008 -3- progressed this far, I do not think it is fair to direct the bank to keep the proceedings in abeyance without imposing any conditions.
5. Having regard to the circumstances, I feel that such an opportunity could be granted to the petitioner on her remitting at least Rs.5 lakhs to the bank. When this was pointed out, counsel for the petitioner tells me that an amount of Rs.3.11 lakhs has already been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and that the same has not been released on account of the objections raised by the bank. It is stated that the petitioner is agreeable to the bank collecting this amount and that any documentation that is necessary from her side that will also be completed by her.
6. Taking into account the submissions made by both sides, writ petition is disposed of as follows:
1) It is directed that it will be open to the 1st respondent Bank to collect the full amount now available with the Special Tahsildar, National Highway (Land Acquisition), Changanassery, towards the compensation that has been awarded to the petitioner.
2) In order to enable the Special Tahsildar to release the aforesaid sum and the 1st respondent to collect the same, if any W.P.(C) No. 22254 OF 2008 -4- documentation is necessary from the side of the petitioner, that will be duly completed by the petitioner within one week from today.
3) In the meanwhile, within one week from today petitioner shall also remit an additional amount of Rs.1.75 lakhs with the 1st respondent bank.
4) Subject to the realisation of the amount from the Special Tahsildar and the remittance of Rs.1.75 lakhs as above, all further proceedings against the mortgaged assets will be deferred for 6 weeks.
5) In the meantime, it will be open to the petitioner to identify a purchaser and approach the bank and if the value offered will at least satisfy the claim of the bank, the bank will permit the sale as arranged by the petitioner.
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-