Disposed

Unnikrishnan v. State Bank of Travancore

Kerala HC17 Mar 2010WP(C)/7662/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted a petitioner to repossess a building from a bank until 31-03-2010 to facilitate examinations, contingent on an affidavit undertaking to clear outstanding liability by that date, with threat of immediate surrender thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to re-occupy building until 31-03-2010; liable to surrender on 01-04-2010 if liability not cleared.

Unnikrishnan Vs State Bank of Travancore — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 7662 of 2010(G) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

UNNIKRISHNAN, K.A.NIVAS, FLOWER LAND, VETTIYERA, NAVAIKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR

SMT.P.A.ANITHA

RESPONDENTS:

STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KALLAMBALAM BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶14

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KALLAMBALAM BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

N.S.SUNIL KUMAR, ADCOVATE COMMISSIONER, ADVOCATE, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

R1-R2 BYADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶19

WP (C) NO. 7662 OF 2010

¶20

Dated this the 17^th day of March, 2010

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

¶23

This is a matter where Exhibit P2 Judgment has been passed by this Court, permitting the petitioner to clear the liability by way of installments, as specified there in, which however considered as not complied with and as such no interference is normally required. The case of the petitioner has been molted referring to some .... installing aspects as well. It is stated that the possession of the building has been taken over by the respondents forcefully without serving any notice to the petitioner and the entire belongs to the petitioner have been kept under lock and key by virtue of which the students of the petitioner are prevented from getting the books and belongings and attending the examination already scheduled. The main contention is that the respondents were not justified in take law in their hands. The forms and allegations in the Writ Petition have been vehemently opposed from the part of the

¶24

WP (C) NO. 7662 OF 2010

¶25

¶26

respondent Bank, stated that, the possession was taken pursuant to the order passed by concerned .. in order under Section 14 .. the Advocate Commission to provide necessary assistants who issued a certificate under .. of posting to the petitioner. It is also stated that the Manager of the Bank had informed the possession personally to the petitioner as well. Despite which the petitioner chose to leave the building and premises after lock the same and it was in the said circumstance, that the commission with the assistants of the Police broke upon the lock and took the possession of the building and hand over it to the Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no point of time was ........for that inform all the proceedings orally or in writing. It is also submits that the petitioner might be permitted to occupy the building and enjoy the movables there on till 31-03-2010 so as to enable the children of the petitioner to pursued their steps and take part in the examination. An affidavit has also been filed before this Court today by the

¶27

WP (C) NO. 7662 OF 2010

¶28

¶29

petitioner undertaking that the entire outstanding liability to the Bank will be cleared on or before 31-03-2010. Taking note of the entire facts and circumstance, even though no fault or lapses can be .. on the part of the respondents in any manner. Since the averments raised in this regard have been said to be reported in the part of the petitioner and also taking note of the pursuant submissions .... it should caused any defaults relevant to the petitioner's children. This Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to have modification of the building and premises till 31-03-2010. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to re convey the possession of the building to the petitioner forth with at any rate within 2 days. Undertaking given by the petitioner by way of affidavit filed before this Court today that the entire outstanding liability will be cleared on or before 31-03-2010 has also recorded. It is made clear that if the liability is not satisfied by one or other reason, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to

¶30

¶31

WP (C) NO. 7662 OF 2010

¶32

proceed with further steps, the petitioner shall effect vigorous surrender under the premises on 01-04-2010. Following which, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to get the assistance of Police, for which the Bank need not pursued any further steps by approaching the Magistrate or to file the assistance of Commission in this regard, but for produce the copy of judgment before the concerned Police Officer.

¶33

The Writ Petition is disposed of, as above.

¶34

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,

¶35

JUDGE.

¶36

rkc

Unnikrishnan v. State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan v. State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paul Perinchery Vs Union Bank of India

P.K. Poulose Vs the Sales Tax Officer

Antony Vs the Branch Manager, Sbt and Another

Jimmy Jose Vs Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Thomaskutty Job Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation & Other

M.K.Balakrishnan Vs Susan Jacob