Disposed

Haridas M.A v. the Branch Manager State Bank of India

Kerala HC22 Dec 2011WP(C)/34821/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging bank recovery proceedings under SFSI Act, 2002, the Court took a lenient view. Petitioner challenges challenge to SFSI proceedings; Court allowed payment plan with SLA abeyance on compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 3 lakhs immediately and balance in ten monthly instalments starting 2.1.2012 on first working day of each month; further proceedings in abeyance on compliance.

Haridas M.A Vs the Branch Manager State Bank… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 34821 of 2011(C)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

HARIDAS.M.A., S/O.M.R.APPU, SRI SAI NILAYAM, MUNDANATHARA HOUSE, KEEZHATOOR, KUTTIKAL P.O, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR – 22.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.SEBASTIAN JOSEPH (KURISUMMOOTTIL) SRI.E.HARIDAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶12

1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THALIPARAMBA BRANCH, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

2. THE CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, RETAIL ASSETS, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, CITY CREDIT CENTRE, S.N.PARK ROAD, KANNUR – 1.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C).No. 34821/11

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.30.11.2010.

¶19

P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.15.11.2011.

¶20

P3. COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE BANK.

¶21

///True copy///

¶22

P.A. to Judge

¶23

S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ==================

¶24

W.P.(C).No. 34821 of 2011

¶25

==================

¶26

Dated this the 22^nd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, initiated by the respondents for recovery of loan amounts defaulted by the petitioner. The petitioner does not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioner only seeks facility to pay off the amounts due in instalments.

¶28

This is opposed by the learned counsel for the bank.

¶29

However, taking a lenient view, I dispose of this writ

¶30

petition with the following directions;

¶31

The petitioner shall pay an amount of 3 lakhs tomorrow. The petitioner shall pay the balance amounts due in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 2.1.2012. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays the initial amount of 3 lakhs and the instalments on the due dates without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of either the initial amount of ` 3 lakhs or any of the instalments, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard.

¶32

sdk+

¶33

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶34

///True copy///

¶35

P.A. to Judge

¶36

: 2 :-

Haridas M.A v. the Branch Manager State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haridas M.A v. the Branch Manager State Bank of India

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

V.K.Viswanathan Vs K.C.Gopi

M.P.Varghese Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

K.T.Abdul Razak Vs the Employees Provident Fund Organisatio

M/S. Anna Trde Links Vs the Intelligence Inspector

Thankamma Chellappan Vs the Thiruvalla Urban Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

Vaikunda Sekhar Vs the Commercial Tax Officer & Others