Disposed

Ajikuttan.N v. the Federal Bank Ltd., and Others

Kerala HC2 Feb 2012WP(C)/725/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court, while disposing of a writ petition challenging SARFAESI proceedings and seeking loan regularisation, granted relief conditionally. The Court directed the Bank to regularize the loan if the petitioner clears the entire defaulted amount within four weeks, with coercive action deferred accordingly. The petition is dismissed if the conditions are not met.

What did the court decide?

Directed to clear defaulted amount within four weeks to regularize loan and defer coercive action.

Ajikuttan.N Vs the Federal Bank Ltd., and Others — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/13TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 725 of 2012 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

AJIKUTTAN.N S/O.NANUKUTTAN NADUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU PALACHALKONAM KATTACHAIKUZHI P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.D.ASOKAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., AND OTHERS

¶11

VIZHINJAM BRANCH

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶13

VIZHINJAM P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033

¶14

2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER(CHIEF MANAGER)

¶15

THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED,

¶16

REGIONAL OFFICE

¶17

FEDERAL TOWERS

¶18

STATUE

¶19

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001

¶20

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶21

COLLECTORATE,

¶22

KUDAPPANAKUNNU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 698 033

¶23

R2 BY SRI.A.ANTONY R2 BY SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WPC NO.725/12

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶28

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 9.9.2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.6.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

//True Copy//

PA to Judge

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 725 OF 2012

¶34

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

¶35

Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2012

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the Bank.

¶38

Petitioner had availed of a housing loan from the respondent Bank. Default was committed and SARFAESI proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and Ext.P2 is the possession notice issued by the Bank. It is at that stage the writ petition was filed mainly with a prayer to direct the Bank to regularise the loan.

¶39

I heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents who submits that after giving credit of 1 lakh remitted by the petitioner in pursuance to the interim order dated 10/1/12, 1.95 lakhs is due towards the defaulted amounts itself.

¶40

Now that the request of the petitioner is to direct regularisation of the loan, such request can be considered only if the petitioner pays the entire amount in default. Therefore, I direct that, if the petitioner clears the defaulted amounts due to the Bank within four weeks from today, the Bank will regularise

¶41

WPC.No.725/12

¶42

:2 :

¶43

the loan in favour of the petitioner and permit him to repay the balance amount due in accordance with the loan agreement. It is clarified that in the event of payment as above, coercive action will be deferred and in case of non payment, the Bank will be free to continue the coercive action it has already initiated.

¶44

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶45

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶46

Ajikuttan.N v. the Federal Bank Ltd., and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajikuttan.N v. the Federal Bank Ltd., and Others

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

Santhimadam Builders Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. Nilkamal Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Vat)

Rohn Enterprise, Mahe Represented by Proprietor Sudhi Kotayil Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Palakkad

Sudheesh.S. Vs Sudharam.R.

Joy Thomas and Others Vs State Bank of India and Others

Indu Gopi Vs South Indian Bank Ltd.