Partly allowed

P.R. Hari v. Chief Manager

Kerala HC23 Dec 2011WP(C)/35145/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging loan recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The court directed the petitioner to repay the dues in ten monthly instalments. Upon compliance, further proceedings are held in abeyance; default allows immediate resumption without fresh notice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay balance dues in ten equal monthly instalments starting 16.1.2012; further proceedings stayed pending payment without default.

P.R. Hari Vs Chief Manager — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 35145 of 2011(P)

PETITIONER:

P.R.HARI, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, PATTATHIL KALATHIL, KADAKARAPPALLY P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED

¶10

SRI.V.PRASANTH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

THE CHIEF MANAGER & AUTHORISED OFFICER, BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, KERALA ZONE, KALOOR TOWERS, KALOOR-KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KOCHI – 682 017.

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, THURAVOOR BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT – 688 532.

¶14

P.R.VENU, PROPRIETOR, M/S.FAB SPIN AND WEAVERS, KALATHIL HOUSE, KADAKARAPALLY P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA – 688 529.

¶15

ADVOCATE SRI P.P JOJI, STANDING COUNSEL

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P(c) No.35145 of 2011

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 02.12.2011 ISSUED UNDER RULE 8(1) OF THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002.

¶21

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT DATED 04.12.2011.

¶22

/TRUE COPY/

¶23

P.A TO JUDGE

¶24

S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 35145 of 2011

¶25

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

¶26

Dated this the 23^rd 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 the balance amounts due in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 16.1.2012. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day after 15^th of every succeeding month. If the petitioner pays 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 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.

sdk+

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

P.R. Hari v. Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.R. Hari v. Chief Manager

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

Johny Paul Vs Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Basheer Vs Chief Secretary

K.Mahamood Vs the Mattool Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

K.S. Gopi Vs State

M.Naveenkumar Vs State of Kerala and Others

Suresh Kumar G. Vs Union Bank,Rep.by Its Authorized Officer