EMMEY JOSE Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of Smt. Margaret Luke, whose property was sold by the Recovery Officer exercising power under Section 25 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1993') read with second schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.T. Act').

(2.) THE facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the property was mortgaged by Smt. Margaret Luke with the 1st respondent bank, who obtained a decree for sale of the property by virtue of orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short 'DRT'), Chennai. Since the mortgaged property was situated within the jurisdiction of the DRT, Kerala at Ernakulam, the certificate was transferred to DRT, Kerala for execution.

(3.) THE tenant Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short 'BPCL') challenged the said sale by approaching the DRT. The same came to be disposed of without adjudicating the rights of the tenant. According to the petitioners, they had come to know about the sale and confirmation of sale after three years from the date of sale. It is contended that Smt. Margaret Luke expired on 19/05/2000. Though several steps were taken by the 1st respondent against the property of Smt. Margaret Luke after her death, the legal heirs were neither informed nor any notice had been issued to them. According to them, they only knew about the fact that there was a tenant in respect of the property. Since they were all residing in their matrimonial homes with their families, they were not aware of the certificate issued by DRT, Chennai, transfer of certificate, sale or any further proceedings initiated by the Bank, Recovery officer or tenant in this regard. It is contended that the entire process by which sale of the property has been held is invalid and illegal as the property having a value of more than Rs. 4 Crores has been sold without any notice to the legal heirs of the mortgagor/debtor. Hence the petitioner has sought for a declaration that the sale of property having an extent of 17.14 cents in Sy. No. 305/1 (Re -Sy. No. 65) of Perumbavoor village is void and illegal and seeks for a direction to permit the petitioners to redeem the mortgage by discharging the liability of the 1st respondent.