BY AD v. R.MURALEEDHARAN
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 23 Jan 2024
- Bench
- N NAGARESH
Provisions considered
Judgment
resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the total outstanding amount payable by the petitioners would exceed ₹9 Crores inclusive of dues in certain accounts which are not declared as NPA. Even if the properties as prayed for W.P.(C) No.2378 of 2024 :5: by the petitioners are released for sale, the petitioners will not be entitled to get the title documents released because there are other loans taken based on the said documents. Furthermore, the valuation of the property sought to be released by the petitioners would come to ₹6.75 Crores as per the Bank's valuation, whereas the petitioners are offering only ₹4.75 Crores.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
What is sought for by the petitioners is grant of No Objection Certificate for private sale of a property, which stand mortgaged to the Bank. Taking into consideration the offer made by the petitioners and the valuation of the property, the Bank is not inclined to consider such proposal. According to the Bank, the property in question stands mortgaged for other Non-NPA accounts also. W.P.(C) No.2378 of 2024 :6:
At any rate, the petitioners have not advanced any illegality in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in order to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. The petitioners state that the property sought to be taken over by the Bank contains godowns of the petitioners, which are registered with the GST Department. Therefore, the petitioners may be granted a breathing time at least to shift the godowns. The petitioners will be at liberty to approach the Bank for any arrangement in this regard. JUDGE Sd/- N. NAGARESH W.P.(C) No.2378 of 2024 :7: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2378/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEE.13(2) OF THE ACT, BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.01.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF TRANSACTION DETAILS OBTAINED FROM THE BANK, DATED 05 .08.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED UNDER RULE 8(1) BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DT.20.04.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING ONE TIME SETTLEMENT, DT.14.11.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2023 IN WP(C) NO.43325/2023 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 05.01.2024 SERVED TO THE PETITIONERS REJECTING EXT.P-5 APPLICATION TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION FOR SALE OF PROPERTY BY PRIVATE NEGOTIATIONS DATED 06.10.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION FOR SALE OF PROPERTY BY PRIVATE NEGOTIATIONS DATED 08.01.2024 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADV. COMMISSIONER TO TAKE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF PROPERTIES DT.30.11.2023
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 23 Jan 2024. The bench was N NAGARESH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.