Disposed

Thomas John v. Union Bank of India

Kerala HC17 Sept 2012WP(C)/19261/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought court intervention to compel a Bank to release title deeds after remitting a partial settlement amount. Court held that without proof of agreement to settle at the claimed figure, it could not direct the Bank but ordered it to decide the proposal within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Bank directed to intimate decision on settlement proposal within four weeks; no order to release title deeds immediately.

Thomas John Vs Union Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/26TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 19261 of 2012 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THOMAS JOHN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.THOMMAN THOMAS, PADAPPANMAKEEL HOUSE, CULLEN ROAD, MULLAKKAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 011.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH

¶9

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

¶10

1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MULLAKKAL BRANCH, KABEER PLAZA, CCNB ROAD, ALAPPUZHA-688 010.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,

¶12

UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, STATUE,

¶13

M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. -695 001.

¶14

3. THE GENERAL MANAGER,

¶15

PERSONAL BANKING AND OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT,

¶16

12TH FLOOR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, VIDHAN BAHVAN MARG,

¶17

NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021.

¶18

BY SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 19261 of 2012 (G)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXHIIT P1:	STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE TITLE DEEDS OF THE PROPERTIES.
EXHIIT P2:	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15TH OCTOBER, 2011.
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTED 28/11/2011.
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31/3/2012.
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SAID LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER'S LAWYER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 7TH JULY, 2012.
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SAID LETTER SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S LAWYER, DATED 8TH JUNE, 2012.
EXHIBIT P7:	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SAID COMPLAINT MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14/6/2012.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(C) NO.19261 OF 2012(G)

¶32

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

¶33

Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2012

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Petitioner states that he had 3 accounts in the respondent Bank. One of the account was classified as NPA and SARFAESI proceedings were initiated. According to him, although total liability was Rs.1.94,00,000/-, the 2^nd respondent intimated him his willingness to settle the liability for Rs.1,60,00,000/-. It is stated that accordingly he has already remitted Rs.1,25,00,000/-. In this writ petition what the petitioner states is that on his paying the balance amount of Rs.35 lakhs, the Bank should release the title deeds deposited by him. It is with this grievance the writ petition is filed.

¶36

However the petitioner has not produced any evidence showing the agreement on the part of the Bank to settle the liability accepting Rs.1,60,00,000/-On the other hand counsel for the Bank submits before this court that although this offer was made by the petitioner, the Bank did

¶37

not agree to settle the liability as claimed by him. Further even in Ext.P6, Bank has only expressed its willingness to consider the proposal of the petitioner.

¶38

WPC.No. 19261/2012

¶39

:2 :

¶40

Therefore, in the absence of any material indicating an agreement on the part of the Bank to settle the liability at Rs.1,60,00,000/- as claimed by the petitioner, this court cannot direct the Bank to accept Rs.35 lakhs and release the title deeds submitted by him.

¶41

Be that as it may, since Ext.P6 shows that the Bank has agreed to consider the proposal, it shall intimate its decision on the proposal to the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from today.

¶42

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶43

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶44

vi/

¶45

WPC.No. 19261/2012

¶46

:3 :

Thomas John v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas John v. Union 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

Vijayamma Pillai Vs E.Noorudeen Kunju

P.Koshy John Vs Addl.Registering Authority,Ottappalam

Aswini Hospital Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Intelligence Officer

Chandrangathan Vs the Authorised Officer

Rachael George Thoppil Vs Federal Bank Limited

M/S Hotel Seagate Vs Commercial Tax Officer