Kerala High Court
Raveendranathan A.G vs The Trichur Urban Co-Operative Bank ... on 16 March, 2020
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WA.No.561 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5365/2020(U) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RAVEENDRANATHAN A.G.,
AGED 63 YEARS, SON OF GOVINDAN EZHUTHASSSAN,
AMMANATH HOUSE, PRASHANTHI, KRISHNA GARDEN,
VELLAT LANE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.S.DILEEP
SHRI.P.BINOD
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
THE TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT MISSION QUARTERS,
THRISUSR-1, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER IN CHARGE /
AUTHROISED OFFICER SRI. JEROME P. THOMAS, AGED 56
YEARS, WORKING AT TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LIMITED, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR - 680 001.
BY ADV.SRI.DEVAPRASANTH P.J.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2020,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.561 of 2020
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2020 S.Manikumar, C.J.
Challenge in this writ appeal is to the dismissal of W.P.(C)No.5365 of 2020 dated 3.3.2020. The judgment reads thus:
"Petitioner, on 24.2.2020 preferred a writ petition against the measures taken by the Bank for taking possession of the mortgage property, and obtained interim order dated 24.2.2020.
2. Today, the learned counsel for the Bank entered appearance and raised the objection qua maintainability on the account that there is a deliberate concealment of falling of writ petitions bearing O.P Nos.25930/2002 and WP(C) No.17013/2009 on the premise that loan agreement had become NPA on 1.12.1999 and the petitioner has managed to retain possession by adopting all possible tactics.
3. Keeping in view of the above, I am of the view that thus the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, noticing the facts that the account was declared as NPA in the year 1999 and the petitioner had preferred one Original Petition and one writ petition and approached this Court again without disclosing the same.
It is a clear cut case of suppression of material facts and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed."
2. Though the said judgment is impugned on various grounds, Mr.P.Binod, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that time limit to W.A.No.561 of 2020 3 challenge the order dated 7.2.2020 in C.M.P.No.851 of 2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) has not expired and therefore, prays that liberty may be given to the appellant to pursue the statutory remedy. Placing on record the above, liberty is granted subject to the law of limitation.
3. Though the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order impugned in the writ petition may be kept in abeyance till the appellant approaches the Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, this court is not inclined to grant any such interim relief as the writ petition itself is not maintainable.
Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
S.Manikumar, Chief Justice Sd/-
Shaji P.Chaly Judge vpv /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE