Review petition filed by a borrower to challenge a bank order rejecting a request for installment repayment due to failure to sell properties. Court found no error apparent on the face of the records and dismissed the review petition.
Review petition dismissed with liberty to parties to sort out reliefs, if desired and agreed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931
RP.No. 1134 of 2009(T)
----------------------
( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21799/2009 Dated 03/08/2009 )
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
MADARI BHARGAVI AMMA, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.VADAKKEPPATTU PRABHAKARA MENON, MADARI HOUSE, EDAKKARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.A.V.JAMES
SRI.DALBI EMMANUEL PALAMOOTTIL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
R1 and R2 BY DEVAPRASANTH P.J., SC. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER ADV. MR. R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
R.P. No. 1134 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No. 21799 of 2009
......................................................................... Dated this the 11th December, 2009
O R D E R
The Writ Petition was filed challenging the coercive proceedings taken by the Bank invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act and it was disposed of as per the judgment dated 03.08.2009 recording the submission made from the part of the petitioner that the default occurred was only because of some unforeseen circumstances and that the petitioner would clear the entire liability on or before 01.10.2009. It was accordingly that the matter was finalised, of course making it clear that if any default was made by the petitioner, the Bank would be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum, by pursuing such steps from the stage where it was intercepted as on the date of the verdict.
2
R.P. No. 1134 OF 2009
liability could not be cleared. It is in the circumstances, the review of the judgment is sought for, to permit the petitioner to clear the liability by way of ten equal monthly installments.
[AIR (1995) SC 455].
In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to review the judgment and the Review Petition is dismissed; however without prejudice to the parties to sort out the reliefs, if so desired and agreed..
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
lk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the records to invoke the court's power to review the judgment disposing of the writ petition under the SARFAESI Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari ChoudhuryReferred¶29
<u>Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury</u> [AIR (1995) SC 455] · Who else cites this
MADARI BHARGAVI AMMA
THE NILAMBUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.
THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, NILAMBUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.
THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
