The Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice G. Girish, dismissed an appeal filed by former Sub-Inspector of Police, Aloysius Alexander, challenging an order of property attachment issued by the Sub Court, Karunagappally. The case arises from allegations of custodial torture leveled by Advocate S. Jayakumar, seeking ₹25 lakh in damages.
Case Background
The case stems from a suit filed by Jayakumar in the Sub Court, Karunagappally (O.S. No. 55 of 2022). The advocate alleged that he was subjected to custodial torture at the Karunagappally Police Station under the supervision of Alexander, then serving as Sub-Inspector. To secure the claimed amount of damages, the court initially issued a conditional attachment of Alexander’s property.
On January 31, 2024, the Sub Court made the attachment absolute, prompting Alexander to file the appeal (F.A.O. No. 70 of 2024) in the Kerala High Court. The appellant argued that the attachment of the property, offered as security for a bank loan, would cause undue hardship and jeopardize his financial stability.
Legal Issues
The High Court deliberated on two critical issues:
- Whether the property attachment was justified to ensure the execution of a potential decree for damages.
- Whether the attachment would adversely affect the rights of the secured creditor, the bank.
Arguments by the Parties
Advocates N.M. Madhu and C.S. Rajani represented the appellant, arguing that the attachment over a property already mortgaged to a bank would lead to irreparable harm. They contended that the bank might initiate recovery proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, if the loan repayment was disrupted.
Advocate Rajan T.R., representing Jayakumar, countered that the attachment was necessary to prevent Alexander from alienating the property, which could frustrate the plaintiff’s ability to execute a decree if granted.
High Court’s Observations
Justice G. Girish upheld the Sub Court’s decision, observing that a prima facie case had been established against Alexander. The court remarked that there was a likelihood of Jayakumar succeeding in his suit and noted that the appellant had failed to demonstrate how the attachment would impede the bank’s rights over the property.
In a key observation, the court stated:
“The subsequent attachment over the property cannot affect the right of the bank to proceed against it in case of default. The apprehension of the secured creditor is unfounded.”
Decision
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court clarified that the attachment order would not hinder the bank from recovering its dues if the appellant defaulted on the loan. However, it upheld the necessity of the attachment to protect the plaintiff’s interests in the damages claim.
