SREEKANTAN NAIR v. THE CHIEF MANAGER
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 02 Jul 2008
- Bench
- S SIRI JAGAN
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Now that the possession has already been taken over by the Bank, I do not think that this Court can reverse the process especially since there is no final judgment as to the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to deal with petitions under…
Judgment
S. Siri Jagan, J.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=W. P (C) No. 19933 of 2008=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Dated this, the 2nd July, 2008.J U D G M E N TThe petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 initiated by the 1st respondent for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the 1st respondent. His grievance now is that the 1st respondent has initiated proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram under Section14 of the Act. According to the petitioner, the proceedings before the2nd respondent is without jurisdiction. He also points out that this Court has in a writ appeal stayed such proceedings . The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:
i)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to stay all further proceedings of Ext. P1 and P2 till the disposal of this writpetition.ii)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent bank not to proceed the petitioner's property on the basis of Ext. P1 and Ext.P2 till disposal of this writ petition.
The learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court challenging thesecuritisation proceedings by filing W.P(C) No. 1045/2008, which was disposed of by this Court directing the petitioner to pay off the amounts in five instalments. The petitioner did not pay any instalment. Therefore, the 1st respondent continued proceedings andby resorting to the proceedings under Section 14, possession of the security interest has already been taken. It is thereafter the petitioner has now come with this writ petition. In the said circumstances, according to the standing counsel, there is no bonafides in the contentions of the petitioner and this court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. W.P.C. No. 19933/2008-: 2 :-
I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
Operative part
Now that the possession has already been taken over by the Bank, I do not think that this Court can reverse the process especially since there is no final judgment as to the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to deal with petitions under Section 14 yet.A writ appeal is pending in which there is an order of stay in a case where possession had not already been taken over. In any event, the petitioner had already moved this Court and obtained a judgment permitting the petitioner to pay the outstanding amounts in five instalments which admittedly he has not paid. I do not think that without complying with those directions, the petitioner can now takea contention regarding jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to deal with apetition under Section 14, that too, after the event. It is very much clear that the attempt of the petitioner is to protract the matter as far as possible and there is no bona fides in this writ petition. Therefore,I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Securitisationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 02 Jul 2008. The bench was S SIRI JAGAN.
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.