Allowed

Sulficker v. Uco Bank

Kerala HC1 Sept 2011WP(C)/35033/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court permitted a guarantor to redeem an auctioned mortgaged property. The petitioner had deposited the full auction bid amount, while the successful bidder had only deposited 25%. The court directed the bank to use the petitioner's savings account balance to clear the loan account.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to appropriate Rs.28 lakhs from his savings account to clear the loan; bank to treat sale cancelled and refund bidder with interest; mortgage property released to petitioner.

Sulficker Vs Uco Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 35033 of 2010(D)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

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

¶8

SULFICKER, S/O. MYTHEEN KANN, SULFICKER MANZIL, GANDHI NAGAR, ALAMCODE, PANGAPPARA PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. UCO BANK , OVER BRIDGE JUNCTION, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER - 695 001.

¶13

2. AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, UCO BANK, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶14

3. M/S. SRIVINDIA POLY FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED, TC 27/1952-1, THUMBRA LANE, CHIRAKULAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - 695 001.

¶15

4. ABDUL SALAM, KODEYIL VEEDU, SASTHAMCOTTA PO., SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM 691 001.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE, SC, UCO BANK R4 BY ADVS. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL SRI.M.K.ABDULLA (MANADATH)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶20

W.P.(C) No.35033 of 2010

¶21

Dated this the 1^st day of September, 2011.

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

It is brought to notice of this Court that the petitioner is the guarantor and the property belonging to him, which was mortgaged for securing the loan, was sold in auction for a sum of Rs.53 lakhs. It is conceded by the petitioner as well as respondents 1 and 2, that the petitioner had now deposited a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in the loan account and a further sum of Rs.28 lakhs in a Savings Bank Account, in the same Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no objection in appropriating the amount deposited in the SB Account, against arrears in the loan account, provided the respondent Bank releases the property from the mortgage.

¶24

Inspite of service of notice from this Court, nobody enters appearance on behalf of the 3^rd respondent, who is the borrower company. Learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent/auction bidder submits that he had already deposited 25% of the bid amount as early in the month of

¶25

W.P.(C).35033/10

¶26

-2-

¶27

March 2011 and that the balance amount was not deposited due to pendency of this writ petition and due to the interim orders issued on various dates.

¶28

Considering the equitable relief sought for by the petitioner, I am of the view that he being the guarantor, it is only just and proper to afford him an opportunity to redeem the mortgage, on payment of the value of the property in question. Since he had deposited the entire bid amount, for which the property was auctioned and since it is noticed that the bidder had deposited only 25% of the amount till date, I am of the view that, indulgence can be shown in permitting redemption of the mortgage. This is especially because the sale in question is not yet confirmed and no sale certificate is issued.

¶29

Under the above mentioned circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of permitting respondents 1 and 2 to appropriate the amount of Rs.28 lakhs deposited by the petitioner in the SB Account, against the loan account. The petitioner should also make payment of interest on the deposit made by the 4^th respondent (25% of the bid amount)@ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of refund. If the petitioner makes deposit of the said amount, within a period of 2 (two)

¶30

W.P.(C).35033/10

¶31

-3-

¶32

weeks from today, the respondents 1 and 2 shall treat the sale as cancelled and refund the amount in deposit to the 4^th respondent, along with the interest payable at the above mentioned rate. On such event, the property under mortgage shall be released to the petitioner, threfore, without any further delay.

¶33

It is made clear that, respondents 1 and 2 will be at liberty to proceed for realisation of the balance amount due under the loan account, against the assets of the 3^rd respondent company and also against its Directors personally.

¶34

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶35

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶36

ami/

Sulficker v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulficker v. Uco Bank

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

Gineesh Vs State Bank of India and Another

Anil Kumar Vs S.Rajan and Others

Dinsil Lonappan Vs Canara Bank and Another

Sulficker Vs Uco Bank

Reeja Anil P.N Vs P.Somarajan Pillai

Dr. M.Muralikrishna Dev Vs Icici Bank & Others