Disposed

Lucy Sebastian v. the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC18 Oct 2013WP(C)/24373/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam observed that petitioners challenging SARFAESI proceedings may invoke Section 17 of the Act to contest credit of payments. The Court directed the respondent bank to consider the petitioners' representation for loan regularization within two months.

What did the court decide?

Bank directed to consider petitioners' representation for loan regularization and provide notice within two months.

Lucy Sebastian Vs the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. — 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

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/26TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 24373 of 2013 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

LUCY SEBASTIAN, W/O.LATE I.P.SEBASTIAN, CC 18/1965, IRUMPANATH HOUSE VALUMMEL ROAD, THOPPUMPADY COCHIN - 682 005.

¶8

SUSAN PHELSI, D/O.LATE I.P.SEBASTIAN, CC 18/1965, IRUMPANATH HOUSE VALUMMEL ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, COCHIN - 682 005.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT THRISSUR, BRANCH AT THOPPUMPADY COCHIN, 682 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶12

BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI. C.A. JOY

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 24373 of 2013 (V)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXT.P1	:	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, OBTAINED FROM THE RESPONDENT, FOR THE PERIOD FROM 15/06/04 TO 16/02/09.
EXT.P2	:	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, OBTAINED FROM THE RESPONDENT, FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01/02/09 TO 10/12/12.
EXT.P3	:	TRUE COPIES OF THE CASH RECEIPTS THOSE FIND NO PLACE IN THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
EXT.P4	:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/03/2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SEC.13(2) OF THE ACT.
EXT.P4(a)	:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05/03/2012 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SEC.13(2) OF THE ACT.
EXT.P5	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXT.P6	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB COURT OF KOCHI, DATED 22/11/2012.
EXT.P7	:	TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WRITTEN BEFORE THE DISTRICT MEDICATION CENTRE, DATED 26/08/2013.
EXT.P8	:	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1412 OF 2013, DATED 07.10.2013 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOCHI.

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶19

/TRUE COPY/

¶20

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶21

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶22

WP(C) NO. 24373 OF 2013

¶23

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2013

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioners challenge the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act by the respondent bank. Exts.P4 and P4(a) are the notices issued to the petitioners under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. The bank points out that the loan was recalled and a suit filed in O.S. No. 216/2012 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kochi. It is also contended that the suit has ripened into a decree evidenced by Ext.P7 memorandum of agreement entered into under the auspices of the District Mediation Centre.

¶26

The remedy of the petitioners under the circumstances obtaining is to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Nothing disables the petitioners from invoking the Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act under the circumstances. This is especially so since the petitioners have a case that all the payments effected by them have not been given credit to by the bank.

¶27

¶28

WP(C) No.24373/2013

¶29

The petitioners have put in Ext.P5 representation with the Zonal Manager of the respondent bank. The petitioners have sought for regularising the loan after paying the overdue amount. It is for the appropriate authority to consider Ext.P5 representation with notice to the petitioner. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶31

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶32

ncd

Lucy Sebastian v. the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lucy Sebastian v. the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

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

Antony Jose Vs Chief Manager

R.P.Ravindran Vs Catholic Syrian Bank

Nava Jyothi Ashram Vs State of Kerala

Sumoni Paul Vs State

P.S.Kurian @ Anujan Anthikayam Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Reddy'S Laboratories Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes