Disposed

Sajeevan v. the Federal Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC2 Apr 2013WP(C)/2521/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition, the High Court noted that the petitioners defaulted on a housing loan, prompting SARFAESI proceedings and a stay petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Court held it could not interfere on merits due to pending Tribunal proceedings. However, it allowed the petitioners to clear the liability via six equal monthly instalments, subject to which coercive action would be de

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed to clear liability in six equal monthly instalments; coercive action deferred upon compliance. First instalment due by 30.4.2013.

Sajeevan Vs the Federal Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2013/12TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 2521 of 2013 (M)

¶6

{IN CMP.1402/2012 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA}

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

SAJEEVAN S/O.VASUDEVAN, PULLUTTIL HOUSE,

¶9

PERUMBALAM P.O., CHERTHALA

¶10

REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER

¶11

R.PRASANNA.

¶12

R.PRASANNA

¶13

W/O.SAJEEV P.V, PULLUTTIL HOUSE, PERUMBALAM P.O., CHERTHALA.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.SABU THOZHUPPADAN

¶15

RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.

¶17

BANKING COMPANY

¶18

REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956,

¶19

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ALWAYE

¶20

KERALA AND HAVING ONE OF ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED

¶21

BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, PIN 688 001.

¶22

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD POOCHAKKAL BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN 688 537.

¶23

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) & SRI.P.R.MILTON

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C).No. 2521 of 2013 (M) :: ::

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTONEY HOLDER DATED 05.03.2000 EXECUTED BY IST PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶29

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT IN LOAN A/C NO.1051730063011 OF 2ND RESPONDENT FROM 18.8.2007 TO 14.2.2012 IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER.

¶30

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.7.2012 OF ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER INCMA NO.1402/2012 OF CHIEF NUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT ALAPPUZHA.

¶31

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 08.08.2012 IN IA NO.2223/2012 IN SA NO.650/2012 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶32

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.10.2012 IN IA NO.2223/2012 IN SA NO.650/2012 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM.

¶33

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 01.01.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 18.01.2013 ISSUED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN CMP NO.1402/2012 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ALAPPUZHA.

¶35

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//true copy//

P.A. To Judge

sk/-

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶40

W.P(C).No.2521 of 2013

¶41

------------------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd day of April, 2013

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶44

Petitioners availed of a housing loan from the respondents. The loan was of the year 2000 and the amount was to be repaid within a period of 15 years. Default was committed and SARFAESI proceedings were initiated. The petitioners approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A.650/12. In that S.A., the Tribunal passed Ext.P4 conditional order of stay which was not complied with. As a result, by Ext.P5 order, the Tribunal vacated Ext.P4 order. Subsequently, the writ petition has been filed to avoid the continuance of the SARFAESI proceedings.

¶45

3.When the matter came up for orders on 28.2.2013, this Court granted stay for one month subject to the petitioner remitting

¶46

¶47

WPC.2521/13

¶48

Rs.1,00,000/- and that order, according to the respondents also, has been complied with.

¶49

4.As far as the merits of the case are concerned, admittedly, the petitioners are defaulters and SA.650/12 filed by them is still pending consideration of the Tribunal. Therefore, on merits, this Court cannot interfere with the matter in any manner. Be that as it may, if the petitioners are still desirous of clearing off the liability, I allow them to do so by paying the amounts in six equal monthly instalments. First instalment shall be paid on or before 30.4.2013 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the 30^th of every succeeding months.

¶50

Subject to payment as above, coercive action will stand deferred and in case of default, the respondents will be at liberty to continue with the recovery action. Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶51

Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC Judge

¶52

kkb.2/4.

Sajeevan v. the Federal Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeevan v. the Federal Bank Ltd.

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

A.P.Avaracha Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

S.Bhuvaneswari & Another Vs Commercial Tax Officer & Another

K.M.Rajan Vs Chief Manager, Federal Bank

Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs Usha Vinodan

Aminakutty Umma Vs Ottapalam Municipality and 2 Others

Sheheena Sameer Vs Deputy Commissioner