Disposed

Jose Joseph v. Chief Manager

Kerala HC21 Oct 2008WP(C)/9005/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that prior interim or final orders do not preclude the bank from claiming pro-rata charges for agent expenditures during securitisation. The Court directed the bank to consider reducing outstanding dues after verifying the petitioner's payments within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Bank to consider reducing total outstandings based on petitioner's payments and communicate the decision within three weeks upon the petitioner's appearance for negotiation.

Jose Joseph Vs Chief Manager — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 9005 of 2007(V)

PETITIONER(S):

JOSE JOSEPH, KANNOTHUKUZHY, PULLAZHY P.O., THRISSUR - 680 012.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, S S I BRANCH, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, VYTTILA BRANCH, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

APPENDIX IN WPC.9005/07

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13 (2) OF SECURITISATION ACT.

¶20

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13 (4) OF SECURITISATION ACT.

¶21

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15.2.2007 MADE BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P1(a): TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT SHOWING PAYMENT OF RS.3,34,000/-.

¶23

EXT.P1(b): TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT SHOWING PAYMENT OF RS.1,16,000/-.

¶24

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA OF THE REMITTANC EOF RS.30,000/-.

¶25

/TRUE COPY/

¶26

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶27

W.P(C).No.9005 OF 2007

¶28

¶29

Dated this the 21^st day of October, 2008

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner availed certain facility and defaulted repayment. The proceedings in the course of securitisation initiated against the immovables has led to the impugned action and this writ petition. The petitioner contends that he paid amounts directly to the bank on the basis of orders of this Court. That was obviously after recovery proceedings were initiated and the petitioner faced distress by impending dispossession. In the course of securitisation proceedings, when agents are appointed for dispossession, the bank has necessarily to suffer expenditure on a pro-rata basis which appears to be the nature of the transaction between the bank and such agents. Merely because the petitioner has obtained certain interim orders and final orders, that cannot preclude the bank from claiming pro-rata payments on such account. On such terms, challenge of the petitioner to the demand of the bank for pro-rata charges to be paid off to the agents fails and is repelled. However, it is

¶32

WPC.9005/07

¶33

Page numbers

¶34

directed that since the petitioner had made certain payments, the bank will consider reducing the total outstandings within a period of three weeks and communicate the decision in that regard to the petitioner if he appears before the first respondent after three weeks. If the petitioner desires that he should also be heard in that regard, he may do so by appearing before the first respondent on 4.11.2008 to mark his attendance so that the parties can negotiate appropriately. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge.

¶37

kkb.

Jose Joseph v. Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Joseph v. Chief Manager

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

Annamanada Kaliman Vyavasaya Sahakarana Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

M. Bhaskaran Vs Inspecting Asst.Commr, Sales Tax Office

Biju Paramu Vs the Manager, Bank of Rajastan Limited

Radhakrishnan Vs Town Co-Operative Bank, Kodungallur

K.K.Kanakalatha Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Varappan Vs Authorized Officer