Disposed

Muhammad Basheer v. State Bank of Travancore and 3 Others

Kerala HC17 Dec 2010WP(C)/35618/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner facing potential dispossession under SARFAESI Act sought to pay loan arrears in instalments. Court allowed a lump sum payment in ten equal monthly instalments, suspending coercive steps if paid regularly, with eviction as the penalty for default.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pay entire liability in 10 equal monthly instalments; respondents to keep dispossession/sale steps in abeyance if paid regularly. Default attracts eviction.

Muhammad Basheer Vs State Bank of Travancore and 3 Others — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2010 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 35618 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ------------------------

¶7

MUHAMMED BASHEER, MANNIL HOUSE, VALAMCHUZHI, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE SRI.M.JOSE ANTONY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, ANJAL BRANCH, ANJAL POST, PIN - 691306.

¶12

2. SRI. MUHAMMED IQBAL, PANGODE BUNGALOW, THAZHAMEL, ANJAL - 691 306.

¶13

3. M. SAJITHA BEEVI, AL-JASEERA, CHELAKODE, PATHANAPURAM, PIN - 689 695

¶14

4. M. SHAMLA BEEVI, AL-JASEERA, CHELAKODE, PATHANAPURAM, PIN - 689 695.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶19

W.P.(C).No.35618 of 2010

¶20

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2010

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Petitioner claims to be residing along with his family in a building, which is owned by respondents 3 and 4, who are his sisters. The 2^nd respondent is the husband of the 3^rd respondent. He availed a loan from the 1^st respondent bank in the year 2007, to the tune of Rs.6 lakhs. The property in question, wherein the petitioner is residing, was mortgaged for securing the loan. Consequent to default committed, the 1^st respondent had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Ext.P3 is the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. Petitioner is approaching this court being aggrieved by the coercive steps threatened for dispossession from the residence in question.

¶23

Considering the fact that the proceedings is only at the stage of issuing Section 13(2) notice, and also considering the effective remedies available under the statute, it is not proper for this court to interfere with the proceedings. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay off the liability due to the 1^st respondent Bank, with a view to save the

¶24

W.P.(C).35618/10-B

¶25

-2-

¶26

building wherein he is now residing with family. It is submitted that, neither the petitioner nor the respondents 2 to 4 are intending to pursue any statutory remedies and that they are relinquishing all challenges against the SARFAESI proceedings. On the other hand, limited prayer is to permit the petitioner to pay off the entire arrears, in a phased manner, within a reasonable time.

¶27

Heard; Standing Counsel appearing for 1^st respondent, who on the basis of instructions, submitted that the arrears outstanding is about Rs.8,50,000/- and that after availing the loan in the year 2007 nothing was paid and the account is in chronic default.

¶28

Having considered the fact that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire liability in instalments within a reasonable time.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make payment of the entire balance outstanding in the loan account in 10 (ten) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.1.2011 and on or before the 15^th day of the succeeding months. If payment as directed above is made is made on a regular basis, the respondents shall keep in abeyance all further steps initiated for dispossession and sale of the

¶30

W.P.(C).35618/10-B

¶31

-3-

¶32

residential house, wherein the petitioner is allegedly residing with his family.

¶33

It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, and on such event the petitioner will be liable to be evicted from the building in question without recourse to any coercive steps under Section 14(1). It is also made clear that the relief granted is subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings.

¶34

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶35

okb

Muhammad Basheer v. State Bank of Travancore and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammad Basheer v. State Bank of Travancore and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.Santhosh & Another Vs G.I.C.Housing Finance Ltd. & Another

Devassia.K.v. Vs Authorised Officer and Another

V.K.Ibrahim Vs the Regional Transport Officer

M/S.J & J Timbers,Chalakkudy Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Jose K.Thomas Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Ramesh C.P. Vs Rto,Malappuram