Disposed

Bank of India, Trichur Branch v. Baby Ranjith

Kerala HC16 Nov 2010Con.Case(C)/1306/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case arising from violation of directions to clear loan dues and vacate premises, the Court recorded the respondent's undertaking to deposit funds and avail bank settlements, adjourned the matter for compliance, and closed the contempt case.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; respondent directed to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs within two weeks and clear balance per Bank's intimation within one month; Bank to inform outstanding liability.

Bank of India, Trichur Branch Vs Baby Ranjith — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1306 of 2010 ---------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1297/2010 Dated 29/07/2010

¶6

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

¶7

¶8

THE BANK OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, MRS.C.R.LATHA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.BABU SENAN, ZONAL OFFICE, KALOOR, KOCHI AND BANK OF INDIA, THRISSUR BRANCH, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001, RESIDING AT VIRUTHIYIL HOUSE, KESARI ROAD, N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, MRS.C.R.LATHA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.BABU SENAN, CHIEF MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN-682 017, RESIDING AT VIRUTHIYIL HOUSE, KESARI ROAD, N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JOYI

¶11

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶12

¶13

BABY RANJIT, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, NADUVILPURAKKAL HOUSE, LALUR ROAD, AYYANTHOLE.P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680 003.

¶14

ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶17

¶18

Cont. Case (C) No. 1306 of 2010

¶19

¶20

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2010

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶23

This contempt case takes its origin from the verdict passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No1297 of 2010. The respondent herein along with his wife had availed a cash credit facility of 30 lakhs and a home loan of 16 lakhs from the petitioner Bank creating security interest over the property. On committing default in repayment of the amount, the account was declared as 'NPA' and notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was issued to the respondent.

¶24

Subsequently the matter was settled by the parties

¶25

concerned in the Lok Adalat held at Thrissur in respect of the cash credit facility; while the default in respect of the other account was

¶26

Cont. Case (C) No.1306 of 2010

¶27

¶28

subsisting. When further proceedings were taken by the Bank because of the default on the part of the borrower, the respondent filed W.P.(C) No.19984 of 2010 before this Court wherein interference was declined which led to W.A.No.1927 of 2010. After hearing both the sides, the said writ appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 29^th July, 2010 whereby the Writ Petitioner/appellant was given further time of two months from the date of the verdict so as to clear the balance amount 'in terms of the award'; failing which it was ordered that the respondent should vacate the premises and hand over possession to the Bank. Rights and liberties were reserved in favour of the Bank to proceed with contempt against the Writ Petitioner/appellant for violation of the directions; which forms the basis of this contempt case.

¶29

During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent has already remitted a sum of `40lakhs out of the total liability in respect of both the loans as per letter dated 12.9.2010. It is also

¶30

Cont. Case (C) No.1306 of 2010

¶31

¶32

stated that the balance amount will be cleared by the respondent and that the Bank has been requested to extend the benefit of One Time Settlement or such other eligible concessions, which is still pending consideration before the Bank. According to

¶33

the respondent, the balance liability is only to an extent of 6 lakhs, which is disputed by the Bank and according to whom, the balance liability is nearly 9 lakhs. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent, so as to prove his bona fides, would deposit a further sum of Rupees two lakhs within two weeks and that the balance amount, subject to finalization of the liability by the Bank, will be cleared within one month thereafter.

¶34

In the above circumstances, we do not find it necessary to proceed further with this contempt matter, but for recording the submissions as above. It is open for the respondent to deposit a sum of Rupees two lakhs within two weeks as undertaken and to avail the One Time Settlement or such other benefit, if any, to be extended from the part of the

¶35

Cont. Case (C) No.1306 of 2010 - 4 -

¶36

Bank. The Bank shall intimate the outstanding liability to be cleared as above immediately, and it is for the respondent to satisfy such amount within one month thereafter, as agreed. If there is any default on the part of the respondent in clearing the liability as above, it will be open for the Bank to proceed with further steps under the relevant provisions of law.

¶37

The contempt case is closed accordingly.

¶38

J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice

¶39

P.R.Ramachandra Menon,

¶40

Judge

¶41

vns

Bank of India, Trichur Branch v. Baby Ranjith

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India, Trichur Branch v. Baby Ranjith

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

T.C.Issac Vs C.Rajasekharan Nair

Grama Sakthi Janakeeya Samithi,Rep.Conve Vs P.J.Antony

A.H.Noushad Vs the Palakkad Co-Op.Marketing So.Ltd.

Biju.v Vs Shajahan.a

V.Rajeev Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Cochin Port Trust, and Another Vs Laxmi Granes & Trailers(P).& Others