State Bank of India v. Sreekumar and M/S Exim Malabar and R.P. Devi and Y. Balakrishnan Pillai and Ananthalakshmi S. and Kerala State Legal Services Authority

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 1ST BHADRA, 1944 WA NO. 1138 OF 2014 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 23945/2011 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE BANK OF INDIA NANTHENCODE BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, SANGAMOM, GAS HOIUSE JN., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.R.S.KALKURA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6:`** ``` 1SREEKUMAR AGED 49 YEARS, SREEMANGALATHU VELLAYANI, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 042. 2M/S.EXIM MALABAR TC 1/1501, BHARATI, PAZHAYA ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011. 3SMT.R.P.DEVI PROPRIETRIX, M/S.EXIM MALABAR, TC 1/1501, BHARATI, PAZHAYA ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011. ``` ``` 4SRI.Y.BALAKRISHNAN PILLAI M/S.EXIM MALABAR, TC 1/1501, BHARATI, PAZHAYA ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011. 5SMT.ANANTHALAKSHMI.S M/S.EXIM MALABAR, TC 1/1501, BHARATI, PAZHAYA ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011. ``` **2** ## **W.A.No.1138 of 2014** ``` 6MEMBER SECRETARY KERALA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, NIYAMA SAHAYA BHAVAN, HIGH COURT COMPOUND, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN SRI. K.P.HARISH, SR. G.P. ``` ``` THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **W.A.No.1138 of 2014** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 23[rd] day of August, 2022 ## **Shaji P.Chaly, J.** The captioned writ appeal is filed by the 1[st] respondent in W.P.(C)No.23945 of 2011 challenging the judgment dated 18.02.2013, by which the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside Exhibit P2 award passed by the Kerala State Legal Services Authority in the Lok Adalat held on 07.05.2011. 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows: 2.1. The 1[st] respondent herein/writ petitioner had purchased 6.48 ares of property comprised in Sy.No.216/5 of Pattom Village together with building along with another property admeasuring 2.35 ares in Sy.No.215 of Pattom Village from one T.Krishna Kumari as per sale deed Nos.3599 of 2001 and 3593 of 2001 respectively. By offering the said property as security, the 4[th] respondent had availed a loan from the State Bank of Travancore, Pravachambalam Branch **W.A.No.1138 of 2014** **4** (now State Bank of India). A multistoried commercial building has also been built by the 1[st] respondent in the aforesaid properties. 2.2. The 1[st] respondent received a notice in O.A.No.527 of 2002 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. Later, apparently the subject issue was posted before an Adalat. Though the writ petitioner was represented by counsel in the Adalat and in spite of his prayer for adjournment; overruling the said objections, the Presiding Officer has passed Exhibit P2 award in the Lok Adalat held on 07.05.2011. It was challenging the said award, the writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs: - a) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for records leading to passing of Ext P-1 award and quash the same. - b) Issue a writ of mandamus any other appropriate writ directing the 6[th] respondent herein to take action pursuant to Ext P2 complaint and Ext P3 and P4 letters. 3. The paramount contention advanced by the writ petitioner/1[st] respondent is that the agreement entered into between the Bank and the borrower – the 4[th] respondent in **W.A.No.1138 of 2014** **5** the writ petition, who is none other than the erstwhile employee of the Bank, is illegal as no other defendants signed in it. It is also pointed out that the Advocate, who represented the petitioner, vehemently opposed the award and the process of settlement. However, the presiding officers in the Adalat did not record the objections raised by the writ petitioner. It is also submitted that the writ petitioner has not authorised the 4[th] respondent to sign the settlement for and on behalf of the writ petitioner. The Bank had filed a statement in the writ petition basically supporting the settlement award passed in the Lok Adalat. 4. The learned single Judge after considering the rival submissions and taking note of regulation 33.1 of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1998, has arrived at the finding that every award of the Lok Adalat shall be signed by the parties to the dispute and the panel constituting the Lok Adalat and it is a mandatory requirement; and, therefore, in the absence of all the parties themselves having signed Exhibit P2 award, the award is **6** ## **W.A.No.1138 of 2014** unsustainable. The learned single Judge has arrived at the said conclusion also relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this court in **Leela v. The Manager, National Insurance Company** (2008 (1) KHC 564). The legality and correctness of the said judgment is challenged in the appeal by the Bank. 5. The paramount contention advanced in the writ appeal is that as the writ petitioner was neither a borrower nor a guarantor, there was no privity of contract between the writ petitioner and the appellant Bank and for a compromise between the parties to the loan transaction, the presence of the writ petitioner/1[st] respondent herein was not at all essential. It is contended that though the 1[st] respondent was a party to the proceedings in O.A.No.527 of 2002, he was set exparte on 12.09.2003 and, therefore, the conclusion of the learned single Judge that all parties to the proceedings had not signed the award, has no relevance. 6. We have heard the learned counsel Sri.Harish Gopinath for the appellant Bank; the learned counsel Sri.Madhu Radhakrishnan for the 1[st] respondent/writ **7** ## **W.A.No.1138 of 2014** petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.K.P.Harish, and perused the pleadings and the material on record. 7. It is an undisputed fact that as per Regulation 33.1 of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1998, the signature of the parties to the dispute and the panel constituting the Lok Adalat is a mandatory requirement. Admittedly, in the instant settlement award, the 1[st] respondent/writ petitioner has not signed, and on a perusal of Exhibit P2 award, what we could gather is that the 4[th] respondent in the writ petition has signed the award for and on behalf of the writ petitioner, who was the 5[th] defendant in the suit. There is no provision enabling a party in the suit to sign on behalf of any other party in an Adalat constituted; and more so when no express power of attorney was granted for that purpose. 8. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the findings rendered by the learned single Judge and the reasons assigned to set aside Exhibit P2 award do not require **8** ## **W.A.No.1138 of 2014** any interference at all, there being no jurisdictional error or any other legal infirmities justifying us to do so in an intra court appeal. Needless to say, writ appeal fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- **S.Manikumar Chief Justice** Sd/- **Shaji P.Chaly Judge** **vpv**