Allowed

Mrs. Shahabanuth Kabeer v. the Indian Bank & Others

Kerala HC28 Feb 2011WA/93/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the lower court order staying SARFAESI proceedings involving a mortgaged property sale. The High Court upheld the stay, directing the appellant to pay the loan balance and partial interest, while mandating the Bank to refund the sale proceeds to the fourth respondent. The bank must also furnish account details of funds lying with the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Directed the appellant to pay the loan balance and interest; Bank to refund Rs. 15 lakhs to the 4th respondent and furnish account details; Bank not to accrue interest during pendency.

Mrs. Shahabanuth Kabeer Vs the Indian Bank & Others — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶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 ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

WA.No. 93 of 2011(E) -----------------------------[AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.3186/2010 DATED 12/10/2010] ....................

¶6

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶7

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

¶8

MRS.SHAHABANUTH KABEER, W/O.ABDUL KARIM KABEER, MATHILAKATHU HOUSE, THOTTATHIL MUKKU, CLAPPANA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.RUBY K.JOSE.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE INDIAN BANK, MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, CIRCLE OFFICE, PULLEPPADY, ERNAKULAM – 682 035.

¶13

2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT (CHIEF MANAGER) INDIAN BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, PULLEPPADY, ERNAKULAM – 682 035.

¶14

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, KARUNAGAPPALLY – 690 518.

¶15

4. SRI.GIGI.N., MADATHIL HOUSE, ATTUKALLUKULANGARA P.O., ALLEPPEY – 690 504.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN, R4 BY ADV. SRI. RASHEED C. NOORANAD.

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

prv.

¶19

J. CHELAMESWAR, CJ & ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶20

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

¶21

W.A. NO.93 OF 2011

¶22

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

¶23

Dated this the 28^th day of February, 2011

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

J. Chelameswar, CJ

¶26

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.10.2010, in WP(c). No.3186/2010, the partially unsuccessful petitioner preferred this appeal.

¶27

The appellant's husband availed a loan of 5 lakhs from the Ist respondent Bank in the year 2005. Towards the security of the said loan the appellant mortgaged a property, where a residential house exits. Eventually there was default in repayment of the loan amount. Therefore, the first respondent Bank invoked the SARFAESI Act. The mortgaged property was brought to sale and the property was purchased by the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent. Challenging the invocation of the SARFAESI proceedings, the appellant herein approached this court by filing the writ petition. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Judge opined that the property which was brought to sale is worth about Rs.50 lakhs fetched only 15 lakhs in the sale in question. The learned Judge also recorded that the amount due under the loan transaction was

¶28

WA.No. 93/2011

¶29

:2 :

¶30

approximately 7 lakhs. The learned Judge therefore thought it fit to keep further proceedings pursuant to the sale in abeyance and directed the appellant herein to pay the entire amount due in instalments, as indicated in the judgment under appeal and also directed the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of 15 lakhs paid by the 4^th respondent towards the consideration of the purchase of the property. Aggrieved by the same the instant appeal is filed.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank. We do not see anything to interfere with the conclusion recorded by the learned single Judge. The appellant admittedly paid 3.5 lakhs during the pendency of the litigation. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the leaned counsel for the respondent Bank that an amount of 2.5 lakhs belonging to the appellant is lying in a savings Bank account with the Bank, which amount the appellant agrees to pay to the Bank.

¶32

In the circumstances, we dispose of the appeal directing the appellant to pay an amount of ` 1.8 lakh to the 4^th respondent towards the interest on the amount deposited by him, within a

¶33

WA.No. 93/2011

¶34

:3 :

¶35

period of one month from today and pay the balance amount due to the Bank within a period of 3 months from today. The Bank shall not collect any interest on the amount accrued during the pendeny of this appeal. The Bank also undertakes to furnish full particulars of the account to the appellant within a period of one week. Counsel for the appellant and the leaned counsel for the Bank also agree that the amount in the savings Bank account of the appellant may be directed to be appropriated by the Bank forthwith towards the loan amount, due to the Bank. We also direct the Bank to refund the amount of Rs.15 lakhs in deposit to the 4^th respondent.

¶36

( J. CHELAMESWAR) JUDGE

¶37

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶38

vi/

¶39

WA.No. 93/2011

¶40

:4 :

Mrs. Shahabanuth Kabeer v. the Indian Bank & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Shahabanuth Kabeer v. the Indian Bank & Others

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

Lincoln Varghese Vs Corporation of Kochi

Mathew Olikunnel Vs State of Kerala and 9 Others

State of Kerala Vs Kerala Municipal Corporation Thozhilali

E.K.Mohammed Iqbal Vs M.R.Jayan

K.K.Ramachandran Vs Kerala Financial Corporation

A.K.Balakrishnan Nair Vs the Union of India and Another