V. RAMKUMAR v. RAMKUMAR
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, this revision is dismissed without prejudice to the right of therevision petitioner to work out his remedies under Section 17 of theSecuritisation Act
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, the Chief JudicialMagistrate, if approached with a written request by the secured creditor, is obliged to hand over the secured asset to the secured creditor. In that process the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not bound toissue notice…
Judgment
V. RAMKUMAR , J==========================CRL.R.P. NO. 4229 OF 2007 ==========================Dated this the 26th day of November, 2007.ORDERIn this revision filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C,the revision petitioner challenges the order dated 20.08.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta in C.M.P. No.4124/2007 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of 17.35 Ares of land situated in Resurvey No. 107/7 of Nedumpuramvillage together with the residential building thereon covered by SaleDeed No. 959/1979 of SRO, Thiruvalla stated to be the secured asset offered by the revision petitioner, while availing of a loan from VijayaBank and directing the Advocate Commissioner to hand over the said property to the 1st respondent-Vijaya Bank under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcementof Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the Secutitasiation Act” for short).
The contention of the revision petitioner is that the property from which the revision petitioner is sought to be dispossessed is not merely the secured asset of 6.48 Ares alone, but a larger propertyadmeasuring 17.35 Ares and that the revision petitioner is sought tobe dispossessed from the above property without even any notice to him issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and without affording him an opportunity of being heard. CRL.R.P. NO. 4229/2007: 2:
Operative part
Under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, the Chief JudicialMagistrate, if approached with a written request by the secured creditor, is obliged to hand over the secured asset to the secured creditor. In that process the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not bound toissue notice to any person or hear any person. If any person is aggrieved by the action of the CJM in handing over possession of these cured asset to the secured creditor, the remedy of such person is under Section 17 of the Act. I am fortified in this view by order dated10.10.2007 in Crl.R.P.No. 1088/2007 disposed of by this Court. Hence, this revision is dismissed without prejudice to the right of there vision petitioner to work out his remedies under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.rv CRL.R.P. NO. 4229/2007: 3:V. RAMKUMAR, J======================CRL. M.A. NO.12452 OF 2007IN UNNUMBERED CRL. R.P. OF 2007=======================Date: 26.11.2007ORDER This is a petition to condone the delay of 8 days in filing the above revision. In view of the proposed disposal of the above revision, notice to respondents is dispensed with. Having regard to the averments in the affidavit in support of this petition, the delay of 8 days in filing the above revision is condoned. Registry to number the revision today itself.V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.rv CRL.R.P. NO. 4229/2007: 4:
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, this revision is dismissed without prejudice to the right of therevision petitioner to work out his remedies under Section 17 of theSecuritisation Act
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 401; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcementof Security Interest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 26 Nov 2007. The bench was V RAMKUMAR.
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.