Disposed

Maxim K.Baby v. the General Manager

Kerala HC1 Jul 2009WP(C)/16064/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the bank's action to take physical possession and auction secured assets due to loan default. The court directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 3,00,000 within one month and the balance within four months, keeping coercive proceedings in abeyance during this grace period.

What did the court decide?

Petition privileged; payment of Rs. 3,00,000 within one month and balance within four months directed; coercive proceedings kept in abeyance.

Maxim K.Baby Vs the General Manager — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 16064 of 2009(C)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

1. MAXIM K.BABY, (PROP.M/S. P&J MARKETING) KNRA/14, UTHRAM, GOLFFINKS ROAD, PIPINMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. DR.V.JAYAKUMAR, RENJANA, KRRA 207, TRUE COPY/19/888, KESAVADEV ROAD, MUDAVANMUGAL, POOJAPPURA , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 12.

¶11

BY ADVS. MR.C.R.SIVAKUMAR MR.BAIJU KRISHNAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, PALAYAM BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, SMECCC, LHO ANNEXE, LMS COMPOUND THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

BY ADV. MR.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶20

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

¶21

WP(C) NO. 16064 OF 2009

¶22

Dated this the 1^st day of July, 2009

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioners have rushed to this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank to take physical possession of the secured assets and to be sold in public auction, because of the default committed by the petitioners in clearing the liability under the loan which was availed of by the first petitioner in the year 2004; under the guarantee of the second petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, on instructions submits that, no payment was effected by the petitioners ever since April, 2007, but for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- effected on 21.03.2009, pursuant to issuance of notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. Learned Counsel further submits that, as on date, more than a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- is due, besides interest and cost.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the default was never wilful or deliberate and it was only unforeseen circumstances, particularly in view of the sudden down fall in the market conditions which very much adversely affected the business. At no point of time had the petitioners thought of evading the payment in any manner and that earnest

¶26

WPC NO.16064/2009

¶27

¶28

efforts are being made to raise funds and to clear the entire liability, for which the petitioners seek to have a time of about five months.

¶29

Learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that, the petitioners have to prove their bonafides by effecting a substaintial payment towards the dues. After considering the facts and circumstances, petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- within one month and the entire balance amount shall be cleared within a further period of four months thereafter. Subject to the above, the coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that, if the petitioners commit any default in effecting the payments as aforesaid, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed against the secured assets from the stage where it stands now, for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. This will not prevent the petitioners to pursue Ext.P6 representation filed before the Bank for any concession, if it is found to be fit and proper at the hands of the Bank.

¶30

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶31

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶32

dnc

Maxim K.Baby v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maxim K.Baby v. the General 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

Vinod Vs Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Rto

M.P.Thomas Vs the General Manager

V.P.Mohammed Sherif Vs the Intelligence Officer

Jose Maveli Vs Union of India

Idicula.P.I Vs the Authorised Offcer,Sbi & Another

P.Premkumar Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.