Dismissed

Omana Mani v. the Chief Manager (Authorised Officer Under Sarfaesi Act)

Kerala HC23 Oct 2014WA/1387/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate bona fides by not depositing the required amount. No interference with the single Judge's judgment was warranted. The writ appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed. No relief granted. The order sets aside the conditional order dated 09-10-2014.

Omana Mani Vs the Chief Manager (Authorised Officer… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/1ST KARTHIKA, 1936

¶6

WA.No. 1387 of 2014

¶7

IN WP(C).25230/2014

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25230/2014 of DATED 01-10-2014

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :

¶10

OMANA MANI, AGED 50 YEARS W/O. MANI, ALAKKAL HOUSE, NADATHARA THRISSUR-686 001.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.A.N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :

¶13

THE CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT) CANARA BANK, ARM BRANCH, ERNAKULAM-682 011.

¶14

THE MANAGER

¶15

CANARA BANK, SME BRANCH, KURIACHIRA THRISSUR-680 001.

¶16

JAYARAJAN

¶17

S/O. VELAYUDHAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, THIRUVATHIRA P.O. CHAVAKKAD, PIN-650 561.

¶18

BEENA DHARMAN

¶19

W/O. DHARMAN, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, MANAKKODY P.O. ARMBOOR, THRISSUR-650 561.

¶20

R1 & 2 BY SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-102014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶23

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶24

============================== W.A.No. 1387 of 2014

¶25

============================== Dated this the 23^rd day of October, 2014

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

¶28

Read order dated 9-10-2014. The offer made through that order giving an opportunity to the appellant to demonstrate bona fides has not been used. No deposit has been made in terms of that order. As already noted in the order dated 9-10-2014, there is otherwise no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal, therefore, fails.

¶29

In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶30

Sd/THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶31

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE

True copy

P.S.to Judge

WA 1387/2014

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶39

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶40

============================== W.A.No. 1387 of 2014

¶41

============================== Dated this the 9^th day of October, 2014

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

¶44

WA 1387/2014

¶45

¶46

Not admitted. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There is absolutely no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment whereby the learned single Judge has refused further indulgence in relation to the matters under the SERFAESI Act. There are two earlier judgments. Yet, we think that as a last opportunity, we should test whether the appellant has bona fides in the offer to pay off the entire amounts. Taking the total outstanding into consideration, if the appellant deposits an amount of Rs.20 lakhs on or before 21-10-2014, the matter would be further considered to provide opportunity to liquidate the outstanding and save the property from further distress action under the SARFAESI Act. We also record the submission of the Bank that the property of the appellant has been taken possession of by the Bank. Let no further steps will be taken by the Bank until 24^th October 2014.

¶47

Post on 23^rd October 2014.

¶48

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶49

WA 1387/2014

¶50

¶51

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶52

ks.