Disposed

Suresh Babu.N. v. Union of India & Others

Kerala HC24 Mar 2009WP(C)/5291/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner was defaulted on a loan leading to SARFAESI action. Order allowed regularization upon clearing dues within the financial year but stated benefits would be recalled automatically if two consecutive instalments were missed, without fresh notice.

What did the court decide?

Petition ordered; regularization conditionally allowed subject to payment terms and automatic recall clause if deadlines missed.

Suresh Babu.N. Vs Union of India & Others — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 5291 of 2009(F)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

SURESH BABU.N. S/O.RAMAKRISHAN KURUP, VYSAKH, PANDUVATH ROAD, MARADU P.O.ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.PRAVEEN K. JOY.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. UNION OF NDIA,REP.BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.

¶14

2. INDIAN BANK,M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM BRANCH, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,

¶15

3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,INDIAN BANK, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM BRANCH.

¶16

R1 BY MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.S.G., R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR. S.SREEKUMAR.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

prv.

¶19

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(C).No.5291 of 2009-f

¶22

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

¶23

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2009.

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

1.The petitioner availed a loan from the second respondent. On default in repayment, action was taken through the third respondent under the SARFAESI Act.

¶26

2.In terms of the interim order, petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.60,000/-. The bank is prepared to regularize the transaction provided the petitioner pays the remaining outstandings due for regularization.

¶27

Since the petitioner states that his wife is sick, the bank will consider giving him a long time for paying the incidental charges. If the other remaining outstandings are paid during the current financial year, the bank will honour its

¶28

WP(C)5291/09 -: 2 :-

¶29

commitment to regularize the transaction. If there is default in paying any two instalments consecutively, the benefits of this judgment will stand recalled automatically and the bank can continue to proceed with further action without fresh notice to the petitioner. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶30

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶31

Sha/250309

Suresh Babu.N. v. Union of India & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Babu.N. v. Union of India & Others

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

K.M.Mathew Vs the Commercial Tax Officer and Others

P.P.Velayudhan & Another Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Krishnankutty Nair & Another Vs State Bank of Travancore

P.v.Thamby Vs South Indian Bank Ltd.

Muhammedkutty Vs State Bank of India

Usha S, Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank & Ors.