KATHIKKAL TEA PLANTATIONS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The core issue involved in all the writ petitions is, whether the respondents banks can take possession of the secured assets after issuing sale certificates in respect of auction purchasers.

(3.) The facts, which necessitated to raise the above question by the writ petitioners, are as follows: The petitioner in W.P.No.9043 of 2009 is M/s.Kathikkal Tea Plantations, represented by its Managing Director. The petitioner had availed a loan from the 1st respondent bank by mortgaging the property viz., the land measuring to 1.7 acres in R.S.No.163/3, 161, 210/1B, 210/2, 233/2, 121/10, 121/1, 372/3, 68/2C2 in Kengarai Village, Kotagiri Taluk, Nilgiris District and another 8.74 acres in R.S.No.202/2, 203/1, 203/2A1 and 457/4 in Konavakorai Village, Kotagiri Taluk, Nilgiris District. Since there was a default in making payment to the respondent bank by the petitioner, the debt is classified as 'non-performing asset' and the respondent bank had issued notice on 27.01.2006 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act") to discharge the liability to the bank within sixty days from the date of notice. Subsequently, on failure to discharge the liability in full by the petitioner, as required under section 13(4) of the Act, the respondent bank had issued a possession notice under Section 13(4) on 11.12.2006 to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said notice, the respondent bank had taken a symbolic possession of the property and sold the said property by a private treaty on 09.04.2007 to one P.Srinivasa Varma, Hyderabad, for a sale consideration of Rs.75.60 lakhs and issued a sale certificate in favour of the purchaser on 09.04.2007. Since only symbolic possession was taken by the bank and the secured debtor, namely, the petitioner, was not actually dispossessed and had continued to be in de facto possession of the property, even after issuance of the sale certificate in favour of the purchaser and, therefore, the respondent bank filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.424 of 2008 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, on 13.11.2008 under Section 14(1)(2) of the Act, seeking an order to take possession of the petitioner's property with the help of police aid and hand over the same to the respondent bank. By order dated 16.04.2009, permission was granted to the respondent bank to take possession of the property with the help of police assistance. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to set aside the order dated 16.04.2009' passed in Crl.M.P.No.424 of 2008. The facts in the other writ petition namely W.P.No.9044 of 2009 are also similar to the facts of W.P.No.9043 of 2009. Hence, it is not necessary to narrate the facts of W.P.No.9044 of 2009.