Disposed

Pravilal A.T v. Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank

Kerala HC4 Oct 2012WP(C)/18850/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the validity of possession notices served under SARFAESI proceedings, noting that factual disputes regarding service are better pursued via statutory remedies. The court permitted the first petitioner to clear the outstanding loan liability in equal monthly instalments to defer coercive recovery action.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the first petitioner to discharge the outstanding liability in six equal monthly instalments to defer coercive action.

Pravilal A.T Vs Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/12TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 18850 of 2012 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

PRAVILAL A.T

¶8

ANGAMTHUDIYIL HOUSE, CHEEKKONNU WEST, KAKKATTIL(VIA) PIN 673507.

¶9

BEENA P.S.

¶10

W/O.PRIVILAL, ANGAMTHUDIYIL HOUSE, CHEEKKONNU WEST KAKKATTIL (VIA), PIN 673507.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE P.NO.503 CHALLAPPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE 673002.

¶14

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KALLAI ROAD KOZHIKODE 673002.

¶15

BY SRI.R.SUDHISH, SC, KOZHIKODE DIST.CO.OP. BANK, LTD.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C).18850/12

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 20-07-2011

¶21

EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTS TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 20-07-2011

¶22

EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTS TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 28-10-2011

¶23

EXT.P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTS TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 28-10-2011

¶24

EXT.P-5 TRUE COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS BY THE RESPONDENTS.

¶25

/true copy/ PA To Judge

¶26

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶27

W.P.(C).18850/2012

¶28

Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2012

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioners have availed of two separate loans from the respondent Bank. Default committed by them led to initiation of SARFAESI proceedings which culminated in Exts.P3 and P4 possession notices. It is challenging these possession notices, the writ petition has been filed contending that possession notices were not served on them and that they got it only from the Advocate Commissioner who was appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in exercise of its powers under Section 14 of the Revenue Recovery Act.

¶31

However, learned counsel for the Bank who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that all the formalities including service of notices were complied with. It is also submitted that possession notices were published in the newspapers and that, subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, second petitioner closed the loan by

¶32

W.P.(C).18850/12

¶33

¶34

discharging the entire liability. As far as the first petitioner is concerned, as on 28.9.2012, the liability outstanding was Rs.9,08,381/-.

¶35

On the materials available, I am unable to hold that possession notices were not served on the petitioners. On the other hand, if they have any such factual disputes, it was for them to pursue statutory remedies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, fact remains that the petitioners have already complied with the interim order dated 9.8.2012 requiring them to remit Rs.2 Lakhs and the balance liability is more than Rs.9 Lakhs.

¶36

Considering the above, I direct that the first petitioner will be permitted to discharge the aforesaid liability in six equal monthly instalments. First instalment shall be paid on or before 30.10.2012 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before 15^th of every succeeding month. Subject to payment without default, coercive action shall be deferred and in case default is committed in any one of

¶37

W.P.(C).18850/12

¶38

¶39

the instalments, Bank will be free to continue the recovery

¶40

action that they have already initiated.

¶41

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶42

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶43

mrcs

¶44

/true copy/ PA To Judge

Pravilal A.T v. Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravilal A.T v. Kozhikode District Co-Operative 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

G.Vijaya Kumar Vs Mr.Fazaludheen, the Special Tahsildar

Pappachan Alexander Vs a. Sharaffudeen

K.P.Santhosh Vs State Bank of Travancore

Ananda Krishnan Vs E. Noorudeen Kunju

Jai Hind Oil Mills Vs Canara Bank, Mattanchery

V. Usman Vs Intelligence Officer, Palakkad