Dismissed

Hazeena v. the Chief Manager, State Bank of Travan

Kerala HC14 Oct 2008WP(C)/22197/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam dismissed a writ petition challenging bank recovery action under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner failed to deposit the required sum towards the outstanding loan or demonstrate any steps taken for repayment, rendering the petition untenable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without prejudice to the bank letting the regularisation of the loan.

Hazeena Vs the Chief Manager, State Bank of Travan — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 22197 of 2008(P) -----------------------------------CMP.3212/2008 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

HAZEENA, W/O.SAJEER, AGED 30, SAJEER MANZIL, MAYYANADU P.O., KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SRI. K.SIJU SRI.PRATHEESH.P

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

¶12

THE CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MAYYANADU BRANCH, MAYYANADU P.O., KOLLAM.

¶13

STANDING COUNSEL SRI.R.S. KALKURA

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

W.P.(C) NO. 22197 OF 2008 (P)

¶17

Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2008

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The petitioner is the wife of Sajeer who availed a loan from the respondent. On default, action was taken for recovery in terms of the SARFAESI Act. After the institution of this writ petition, along with I.A.12321/2008, the petitioner has produced the power of attorney of her husband.

¶20

2 Apart from showing that the mother-in-law of the petitioner, that is, the mother of the debtor, is undergoing certain treatments for hypertension and psychotic depression, there is nothing on record to show that petitioner or her husband has taken any steps to satisfy repayment of total outstandings, accrued now to be more than Rs.10 lakhs. When this matter was considered for admission on 29-9-2008, it was found necessary that the petitioner needs to show her bonafides and it was accordingly directed that if the petitioner is interested in prosecuting the case, the petitioner ought to deposit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and case was listed today. No such deposit is made. I may also notice that though the writ petition was

¶21

W.P.(C) No.22197/2008

¶22

¶23

instituted on 22-7-2008, for different reasons, the writ petition was being adjourned. Even with so much time being available, the petitioner has not made any deposit. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the bank letting the regularisation of the loan, if its wisdom so advices.

¶24

Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶25

skr/16/10

¶26

// True copy //

¶27

P.A. to Judge.

Hazeena v. the Chief Manager, State Bank of Travan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hazeena v. the Chief Manager, State Bank of Travan

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

E.P.Gopinathan Vs Tom Jose and Another

P.v.Annakutty Vs Special Sale Officer

K.K.Poulose Vs Mary Mathew & Another.

Arun Gilbert G Vs Secretary to Government

C.Sebastian Vs the Kerala State Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

S.M.Lalithambika Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.