Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (1.08 seconds)

Suresh.K.V vs State Of Kerala on 16 January, 2026

3. Sri. V. Sethunath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the provisions of Section 19 of the CARD Act confer unbridled and arbitrary powers on the Primary Credit Societies, as the Societies are empowered to sell properties that have been mortgaged to secure the repayment of a loan without the intervention of the Court and without any adjudication. It 2025:KER:85547 WP(C) NO. 33272 OF 2025 5 is submitted that Banks/Primary Credit Societies like the 6th respondent are therefore empowered to determine for themselves the amount due from the borrower and also to sell the property that has been mortgaged to recover such amount, in some cases even without fixing a reserve price. It is submitted that this Court, in Sosamma John v. Thrissur Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank and Others, 2018 (2) KHC 498, has taken the view that the sale of property without fixing a reserve price cannot be sustained in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that without resorting to the procedure under Section 69 of the 1969 Act, a Bank/Primary Credit Society exercising powers under Section 19 of the CARD Act cannot proceed to sell properties that are mortgaged.
Kerala High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.T. Sebastian vs The Meenachil Co-Operative ... on 6 March, 2024

The learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the dates shown in Exts.P3 and P4 with regard to the auction of the property is different. He would also point out that in view of Rule 8 of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Rules, 1986, the respondents were bound to incorporate all such details, which are materials for a purchaser to ascertain and judge the nature and value of the property. He refers to the judgment rendered by this Court in Sosamma John v. Thrissur Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank [2018 (2) KHC 498] and it is argued that this Court had held that the fixation of a fair and accurate value of the property is a condition precedent under Rule 8 (e) of the Rules.
1