Petitioners challenged recovery proceedings after their account was classified as non-performing. The court directed regularisation within three weeks with a stay on dispossession. The petition was closed once this condition was accepted.
Stay on dispossession for three weeks conditional upon regularisation or closure of the transaction.
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 THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931
WP(C).No. 5906 of 2009(G)
-----------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
1. T.N.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, KOCHUPURAYIL HOUSE, VATTUKULAM PO, KADAPOOR KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
2. SANTHAKUMARY P.S, W/O.T.N.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, KOCHUPURAYIL HOUSE, VATTUKULAM PO, KADAPOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV.MR.SUNIL JACOB JOSE
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER & AUTHORIZED OFFICER, REGION III, ZONAL OFFICE, OPPOSITE OF COLLECTORATE KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. MR.K.S.DILIP, SC, SBT
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J
........................................... WP(C).NO. 5906 OF 2009
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioners availed a loan from the respondent. On the allegation that the account had been classified as a non performing asset, notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued. Thereafter, the respondent took further steps of paper publication and putting up a notice on a hoarding in front of the property over which security interest was created. They also moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate for an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The fact that there was default at one point of time is not in dispute. Pursuant to the hearing on the previous occasion, the bank was directed to file a statement disclosing the amount that may be due for regularising the account and also for closing the account. A statement has been filed by the bank stating that as on 24.2.2009, after giving credit to the payment of Rs.65,700/-, the petitioners have to pay an amount of Rs.41,195/- to regularise the transaction or an amount of Rs.1,67,195/- to close the transaction. The plea of the
WP(C) 5906/2009
2
petitioners, as of now, is that the amounts so stated by the bank have accrued only because of paper publication and putting up of notice on the hoarding, though according to the petitioners, that was unnecessary because only three instalments were remaining to be paid. These are not matters which are germane for consideration of any jurisdictional issue referable to invocation of the impugned proceedings. The petitioners, if so advised, may regularise or close the transaction in terms stipulated by the bank or otherwise seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to seek statutory remedies against the impugned proceedings, this writ petition is closed. If the petitioners pay the amounts due for regularising or for closing the transaction, within an outer limit of three weeks from now, the dispossession will stand stayed until then.
THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
lgk/24/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the bank's recovery proceedings under Sections 13(2) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act shall be maintained.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
T.N.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR
SANTHAKUMARY P.S
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
