W.P.(C) No. 1477 of 2017 (H). Case: Govindan Nair Vs The Board of Directors of Indian Overseas Bank and Ors.. High Court of Kerala (India)

Case NumberW.P.(C) No. 1477 of 2017 (H)
CounselFor Appellant: P. Bijimon, Adv. and For Respondents: Sunil Shankar, SC
JudgesK. Vinod Chandran, J.
IssueRecovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 17, 18, 19
Judgement DateFebruary 08, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Kerala (India)


K. Vinod Chandran, J.

  1. The petitioner has sought for a range of reliefs from (a) to (z) and then from (aa) to (ii). The essential challenge raised is against the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for brevity "SARFAESI Act"] initiated by the respondent, Indian Overseas Bank, against the property of the petitioner, mortgaged to the Bank for availing a financial facility; one of which properties lies within the jurisdiction of this Court in the State of Kerala. The arguments addressed, were with respect to the proceedings taken by the respondent-Bank with its Branch at Mumbai, from where the loan was availed; under the SARFAESI Act, which proceedings are also against a property within the State of Kerala and those situated in Mumbai. The contention raised is one of set off and the petitioner being divested of any forum to agitate the cause for reason of the initiation of the present proceedings.

  2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 17 of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [for brevity "RDDB Act"], which confers jurisdiction, powers and authority on the Tribunal constituted under the Act to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to them. There is also a bar of jurisdiction to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the RDDB Act and the claim of set off, even according to the petitioner's Counsel, could be maintained under sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the RDDB Act. The learned Counsel, however, contended that no proceedings were so initiated under the RDDB Act and the Bank has chosen the procedure under the SARFAESI Act.

  3. It is contended that under the SARFAESI Act an officer of the Bank, who is authorised to issue a notice, conducts an enquiry and adjudication, which, if challenged before the DRT under Section 17 of the Act would be confined to the procedural aspects and hence the petitioner, who is a borrower and claims set off, is left helplessly without any remedy to make the claim, which the petitioner asserts are of the amounts received by the Bank as insurance, which is actually due to the petitioner. The petitioner seeks for a declaration that either the proceedings now initiated by the petitioner against the SARFAESI proceedings before the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT