Partly allowed

Y.Mohammed Haneefa v. the G.M.,Kottayam District Co-Op. Bank

Kerala HC17 Aug 2007RP/711/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition regarding loan default, the Court granted the petitioner time to clear liabilities via property sale by 31.10.2007. No penal interest is recoverable if paid; otherwise, securitisation proceeds.

What did the court decide?

Time granted to settle liability by 31.10.2007 via property sale; no penal interest if paid; otherwise securitisation may proceed.

Y.Mohammed Haneefa Vs the G.M.,Kottayam… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2007 / 26TH SRAVANA 1929

¶5

RP.No. 711 of 2007(H)

¶6

--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29266/2006

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS

¶8

¶9

Y.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, PUTHENPARAMBIL, CHALIKKUNNU, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

AMEENA BEEVI @ AMEER BEEVI, PUTHENPARAMBIL, CHALIKKUNNU, KOTTAYAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS

¶13

¶14

THE GENERAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOTTAYAM.

¶15

THE BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOTTAYAM.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC,SC FOR RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.

¶19

R.P. No. 711 of 2007 in W.P.C. NO. 29266 OF 2006

¶20

Dated this the 17th day of August, 2007

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Petitioner availed two loans from the first respondent-Bank. On

¶23

account of default, securitisation proceedings were initiated against which petitioner filed W.P.C.No.29266 of 2006 which was disposed of vide Annexure I judgment. Even though instalment facility was granted and petitioner paid a few instalments, petitioner has now applied for review of the judgment stating that petitioner will not be in a position to clear the arrears in instalments. Simultaneously petitioner

¶24

has offered payment in lump by arranging sale of property or otherwise. I feel the request is quite reasonable, more so when loan is covered by adequate security. In the circumstances, Review Petition is disposed of granting time to the petitioner to settle liability till 31.10.2007 by arranging sale of mortgaged property or any other property if petitioner so desires. Petitioner can enter into agreement of sale of any item of property, but no sale deed will be executed without clearing the arrears due to the first respondent-Bank. If payment is not

¶25

¶26

made by 31.10.2007 then respondents will be free to proceed with securitisation proceedings or any other coercive steps. If petitioner makes payment as stated above, no penal interest or collection charges

¶27

should be recovered from the petitioner.

¶28

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge

¶29

Y.Mohammed Haneefa v. the G.M.,Kottayam District Co-Op. Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Mohammed Haneefa v. the G.M.,Kottayam District Co-Op. Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Janette Lobo Vs the State of Kerala

Sakthimatha Cashew Co. Vs the Asst.Commissioner (Assmt.)-Iv

Mrc Transolutions (P) Ltd. Vs the Intelligence Inspector, Commercial T

P. Radhakrishnan Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Padmakshy Vs the Asst.Exe. Engineer

K.B.Murali Vs the K.S.F.E.