MOHANAN T.M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the sale proceedings initiated against the property for recovery of debt due to the respondent Bank and concluded with sale in public auction to the 4th respondent. Admittedly, a loan of Rs. 45,000/ - was availed in the year 1999 and gross default was committed in the repayment. The Bank approached the Joint Registrar of Co -operative Societies with an Arbitration Case in which notice was issued to the defendants being the petitioner herein and his wife. The Award was passed as per Ext. P2. Though Ext. P2 is an ex parte Award, it is seen that the petitioner had entered appearance there and later on, kept away from the proceedings. The wife of the petitioner did not at all appear before the Arbitrator. There is no contention that notice/summons was not received. It was only in such circumstances that, Ext. P2 Award was passed ex parte on 31.07.2002.

(2.) THE respondent Bank contends that after the Award, many a time notice was issued to the petitioner for payment of the arrears due in the account and which dues had been adjudicated by Ext. P2 Award. Since nothing was paid; in the year 2004, the Bank initiated Execution Proceedings as E.P. 527 of 2004. The petitioner again was issued notice in the Execution Proceedings but he chose not to appear. Subsequently, the Execution Petition filed in the year 2004 culminated in the sale proceedings of the year 2008. The additional 4th respondent was the purchaser of the property. The property was bid for a price of Rs. 5,01,000/ - and conveyed to the 4th respondent by Ext. R2(a) deed dated 14.05.2010. After adjusting the loan amounts due in the account, the petitioner received back an amount of Rs. 3,88,932/ - on 3.09.2010 even as per the petitioner's own admission in Ext. P3; but under protest.

(3.) PRIMARILY it is to be noticed that the loan was of the year 1999 and when the Award was passed as Ext. P1, an amount of Rs. 55,377/ - was liable to be recovered with 17% interest on the principal amount of Rs. 43,377/ -. The petitioner, though was served with notice and initially appeared before the Arbitrator, chose to keep away from the proceedings. Later on, in the Execution Proceedings also, very same action or rather omission was repeated. Despite the alleged filing of an objection, produced as Ext. P3, the petitioner does not have a case that he had urged it before the Sale Officer. When the matter came up for sale, he allegedly filed an objection and again kept away from the proceedings. In any event, sale itself happened on 14.05.2010 and the present writ petition was filed in the year 2012.