Disposed

Kunhimuhammed.P.K. v. State Bank of India

Kerala HC8 Oct 2013WP(C)/24361/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice under the SARFAESI Act issued for loan recovery. The bank agreed to withdraw revenue proceedings, allowing the petitioner to pay arrears in twelve equal monthly instalments. Default could lead to resumption of SARFAESI proceedings; no recovery charges were permitted.

What did the court decide?

Stay of coercive steps under SARFAESI Act; revenue proceedings withdrawn; balance loan payable in 12 monthly instalments without recovery charges; sanctioning of SARFAESI proceedings for any default.

Kunhimuhammed.P.K. Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/16TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 24361 of 2013 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

KUNHIMUHAMMED.P.K. AGED 60 YEARS

¶8

S/O. YOOSUF MUSALIYAR, PADINJAKKARA HOUSE, KARAKKAD KONDOORKARA POST, PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA PATTAMBI BRANCH, MAIN ROAD, PATTAMBI REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, PIN-679303.

¶12

2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE PALAKKAD-678001.

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶14

4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (R.R.) OFFICE OF THE TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPALAM-679101.

¶15

5. VILLAGE OFFICER

¶16

ONGALLUR II VILLAGE, VADANAMKURUSSI POST OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679121.

¶17

R1,R 2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)-SC, SBT R1,R 2 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL-SC, SBT R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-102013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 24361 of 2013 (U)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1-	PHOTO COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE R R ACT DATED 19-4-2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2-	PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 34 OF R R ACT DATED 19-04-2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3-	PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 13-05-2013.
EXHIBIT P4-	PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10-6-2013 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5-	PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 11-7-2013 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6-	PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17-8-2013 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7-	PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19-9-2013 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8-	PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17-6-2013 ISSUED U/S. 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH SCHEDULE.
EXHIBIT P9-	PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 16-8-2013 SENT ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10-	PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 11-9-2013 SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11-	PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 23-9-2013 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

--------------------------------------NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

SMM

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶29

= = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.24361 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = =

¶30

Dated this the 8^th day of October, 2013

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The bank initially resorted to revenue recovery proceedings to realise the loan arrears from the petitioner. Exts.P1 and P2 are the demand notices issued to the petitioner in this regard at the instance of the first respondent bank. The petitioner thereupon moved the government and obtained a stay of the revenue recovery proceedings.

¶33

Ext.P3 order permits the petitioner to remit an initial sum of 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) and pay the₹ balance in thirty equal monthly instalments starting from 13-72013. It is reported that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) and is paying the₹ equal monthly instalments from 13-7-2013 as directed. The bank could ill afford to wait for thirty months to realise the loan arrears from the petitioner as permitted in Ext.P3 order. The bank thereupon initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in addition to realise the amount from the petitioner. Ext.P8 notice has been issued by the first respondent bank to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The said

¶34

W.P.(C) No.24361 of 2013 2

¶35

notice is challenged in this writ petition without resorting to the procedure under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶36

The bank is not averse to the withdrawing of the revenue recovery proceedings and to permit the petitioner to pay the amount in instalments to avert the coercive steps under the SARFAESI Act. Whatever amount has been collected by the fourth respondent Tahsildar pursuant to Ext.P3 order shall be passed on to the first respondent bank within a period of one month. I hasten to add that no recovery charges shall be collected from the petitioner in this regard in view of the fact that the bank is willing to withdraw the revenue recovery proceedings itself. The balance amount due to the first respondent bank shall be paid by the petitioner in twelve equal monthly instalments.

¶37

The equal monthly instalments shall start from 1-12-2013 till the wiping off the loan arrears. Any default committed by the petitioner in this regard would empower the bank from pursuing the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶40

W.P.(C) No.24361 of 2013

¶41

¶42

smm

Kunhimuhammed.P.K. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhimuhammed.P.K. v. State Bank of India

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

Dr.Bhaskaranunni.K.N. Vs the Debt Recovery Tribunal

Gopalan Vs Indian Overseas Bank

Mahesh S Madhavan Vs State Bank of Mysore

The M.D., K.S.R.T.C, Vs S.Ansalam

Sakeena Vs the Tahsildar

Jose Vs Revenue Divisional Officer