Allowed

Subimol v. Chief Manager, Sbt

Kerala HC7 Oct 2008WP(C)/29208/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, on a writ petition challenging SARFAESI Act proceedings, condoned the petitioner's default by allowing her to pay Rs. 1 lakh monthly. If she remits this amount timely, respondents will refrain from further distress action until outstandings are cleared; default leads to automatic dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to remit Rs. 1 lakh monthly starting October 2008; respondents to suspend further distress action pending full payment; automatic dismissal on default.

Subimol Vs Chief Manager, Sbt — 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 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 29208 of 2008(B)

¶6

---------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

SUBIMOL, CITY TEXTILE MARKET NIZAR MANZIL, AAKKOLIL CHERRY, KOOTTIKKADA P.O. KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

-----------------------

¶13

1. THE CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,BEACH ROAD BRANCH,KOLLAM.

¶14

2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER' STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, BEACH ROAD BRANCH, KOLLAM.

¶15

R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN, S.C. ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

prv.

¶18

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶20

W.P.(C).No.29208 of 2008-B

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2008.

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner, a woman enterprenuer running a textile shop, availed a cash credit facility from the first respondent; committed default in repaying the loan as agreed and invited proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. There is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in those actions taken by the respondents which have now reached the stage for action under Section 14 of the Act. After the initiation of SARFAESI Act proceedings, the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.4.46 lakhs even according to the respondents. Taking into consideration the earnestness of the petitioner to save the property from the distress action and to run her establishment, it is ordered that if the petitioner remits at the rate of Rs.1 lakh per month payable on or before the

¶24

WP(C)29208/08 -: 2 :-

¶25

last working day of every month commencing from October, 2008, the respondents will also take further distress action to let the petitioner to wipe off the entire outstandings. If there is default in remitting any of the instalments as aforesaid, the benefits of this judgment will stand recalled and the writ petition will stand dismissed automatically enabling the respondents to forthwith proceed with further action without fresh notice to the petitioner.

¶26

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶27

Sha/071008

Subimol v. Chief Manager, Sbt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subimol v. Chief Manager, Sbt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.P.Jalaja Vs Secretary,Nedumangadu Housing Co-Op.Soci

P.P.Narayani Vs State of Kerala

Paul Mathew Vs Bank of Baroda

Josekutty V.J Vs K.P.S.C

Jacob Manuel Vs the Tamilnadu Merchantile Bank Ltd.

Delson P.Davis Vs Trichur District Co=-Op. Hospital