STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in these petitions is the common order dated 2.5.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, by which, the custody of a car, which was the subject matter of a proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, 'SARFAESI Act') was given to the de facto complainant/ bank. The de facto complainant as well as the accused, being aggrieved by the order, have come up with separate petitions.

(2.) Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding these petitions are that a sports utility vehicle was purchased by the 2 nd respondent by availing a loan from the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore, which has now merged with the State Bank of India. Her mother and brother stood as guarantors. When the EMI's were defaulted, the respondent Bank initiated proceedings under the 'SARFAESI Act'. A notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was initially issued. However, the borrowers did not respond. The Bank then filed a petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur under Section 14 of the Act seeking possession of the vehicle and to realize the amounts due. A Commissioner Advocate was appointed to seize the vehicle by the learned Magistrate. However, he was not able to locate the whereabouts of the car. This prompted the Bank to approach the police and lodge a complaint alleging conversion of the vehicle and the offence of cheating. Crime No.2531 of 2016 of the Town East Police Station was registered, inter alia, under Sections 406, 420 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. Later, the respondents 2 and 3 were arrested and the vehicle was seized by the police. Both sides filed applications before the learned Magistrate seeking interim custody. The learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by the respondent Bank and dismissed the application filed by the 2nd respondent.

(3.) The respondent Bank is aggrieved by that part of the order by which, the Bank was restrained from alienating the vehicle. The 2 nd respondent contends that she being the registered owner of the vehicle, the interim custody should have been given to her.