A.A.KUMARAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the auction purchaser of a property over which security interest was created for a loan availed by respondents 4 and 5 from the third respondent. Consequent to default in repayment of the loan, proceedings for the enforcement of security interest were initiated. Possession of the secured asset was taken over by the Advocate Commissioner on 13/3/2018 and handed over to the third respondent.

(2.) Thereafter, in compliance with the statutory provisions, sale of the secured asset was held on 28/10/2021, and petitioner became the successful bidder, having bid the property for Rs.43,10,000.00. Subsequently, a sale certificate was executed and registered as document No.199/1/2022 before the Sub Registry Office, Cherppu dtd. 19/1/2022. The sale certificate was registered after physical possession of the secured asset was handed over to the petitioner. Petitioner also effected transfer of registry of the property and remitted the basic tax.

(3.) Petitioner alleges that on the morning of 22/1/2022, respondents 4 and 5, who were the borrowers, forcibly trespassed into the property, broke open the doors, threatened the inmates and took forcible possession of the property. The criminal acts were reported to the police, and a crime was registered as FIR No.73/2022 of the Cherppu Police Station. A complaint was also filed seeking protection for the life and property of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, after the bank took over physical possession of the property and handed over the same, respondents 4 and 5 could not have trespassed into the property and forcibly taken possession. The action of respondents 4 and 5 questions the rule of law, pleaded the Petitioner. It is averred that after the borrowers were physically dispossessed, in accordance with the statutory provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the Act), the said borrowers cannot re-enter the property and claim protection from dispossession, relying upon other legal principles. Thus, the petitioner seeks a direction to the police to take such steps to remove respondents 4 and 5 from the property and for grant of protection for his life and property. A further relief is also sought to direct the third respondent bank to invoke the provisions of sec. 14 of the Act to deliver possession of the secured asset sold to the petitioner.