Disposed

R.S.Sreekala v. State Bank of Travancore

Kerala HC6 Aug 2007WP(C)/14377/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought relief against notices under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. The Court directed the Bank to decide on the petitioner's proposal for installment payment within one month, while interim order continued.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's proposal for installment payment and communicate decision within one month.

R.S.Sreekala Vs State Bank of Travancore — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2007 / 15TH SRAVANA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 14377 of 2006(J)

PETITIONER:

SMT.R.S. SREEKALA, R.S. BHAVAN, KOTTAMOM, PARASUVAKKAL P.O., PARASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.V.GIRI

RESPONDENTS:

STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, SSI BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER STATUE, G.H. ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.

¶14

AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, SSI BRANCH, STATUE, G.H. ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.

¶15

M/S. KITCO LTD., SHAJI MAHAL, TC 15/1356, BHAKTHI VILASOM ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶17

R3 BY SRI.E.K.NANDA KUMAR

¶18

SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶19

SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

¶20

SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

K.M.JOSEPH, J.

¶23

- - - - WP.(C) No.14377 of 2006

¶24

- - - - Dated this the 6th day of August, 2007

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Petitioner approached this court against Exts.P2, P3 and P5. Ext.P2 is a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. Ext.P3 is a communication from the first respondent Bank referring to Ext.P2 notice and informing that action will be taken. ExtP5 is again another communication from the first respondent informing the petitioner that any delay in payment in terms of the proposal indicated therein will result in further consequences of taking possession and sale of the security properties for recovery of the entire dues. The second prayer of the petitioner is to permit the petitioner to remit the amount covered by Ext.P2 in easy instalments and stay all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2, P3 and P5. Lastly it is prayed that appropriate action be taken on Ext.P6 submitted by the petitioner.

¶27

Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶28

WPC. 14377/2006. 2

¶29

Petitioner is the owner of 5 cents with shop and residential building. She also owns 57.50 cents of land. These properties were mortgaged in connection with loan transaction between SBT Credit facilities availed by a firm of which the petitioner's husband is a

¶30

partner. It was at his instance that the petitioner mortgaged her properties. It is stated that she is now staying in her parental house and surviving with the help of her parents. She prays for a breathing time to clear the dues.

¶31

I heard learned counsel for the respondents also.

¶32

In Ext.P6 the prayer is to give the maximum number of

¶33

intalments at a lowest rate of interest. Having regard to all facts and having heard learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:

¶34

There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P6 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till a decision is taken and communicated to the

¶35

WPC. 14377/2006. 3

¶36

petitioner, the interim order will continue. It is open to the petitioner to approach the Bank seeking the benefit of one time settlement, if any such claim is available.

¶37

(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶38

R.S.Sreekala v. State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.S.Sreekala v. State Bank of Travancore

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

The Secretary, Arpookara Grama Panchayat Vs K.Ramadevi

Indira & Another Vs Trichur District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Madalan Ibrahim Vs the Pariyaram Grma Panchayath

Suresh Babu Vs Thrissur District Co-Op.Bank Ltd.& Ors.

Anil Kumar V.S. Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative

Vinesh Vs Secretary,Perumbavoor Municipality