Disposed

L.Sunil v. the Manager and Authorised Officer

Kerala HC3 Dec 2014WP(C)/12737/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition by a borrower against a co-operative bank sought directions for reconveyance of property and waiver of SARFAESI Act application. The court allowed payment of loan liability in eight monthly instalments, ordered restoration of possession after three payments, and kept coercive proceedings in abeyance subject to default.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pay total liability in eight monthly instalments; possession restored after three instalments; coercive proceedings stayed pending compliance.

L.Sunil Vs the Manager and Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 12737 of 2014 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-----------------------

¶8

L.SUNIL, KARIYIL VEEDU, THOTTAVARAM, PERUMKADAVU.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

-------------------------

¶12

THE MANAGER AND THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.931, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶14

SRI.M.S.KALESH SMT.A.V.PRIYA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

WP(C).No. 12737 of 2014 (N)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 17.4.2012 IN M.C.283/2012 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE NEYYATTINKARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.4.2012 IN M.C.283/2012 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.2.2014 IN M.C.283/2012 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Ms v/

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶30

======================== W.P.(C). No. 12737 of 2014

¶31

¶32

Dated this the 3^rd day of December, 2014

¶33

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶34

prayers:

¶35

“i. Issue appropriate direction or order directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Thiruvananthapuram to reconvey 6.53 Ares of land and the structures thereon in Block No. 25 and Resurvey No.7/7-2 of Peroorkadavu Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District to the petitioner.

¶36

ii. Issue appropriate order or direction directing the respondent to reconvey 6.53 Ares of land and the structures thereon in Block No.25 and Resurvey No.7/7-2 of Peroorkadavu Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District to the petitioner forthwith.

¶37

iii. Issue appropriate direction or order directing the respondent not to alienate 6.53 Ares of land and the structures thereon in Block No.25 and Resurvey No.7/7-2 of Peroorkadavu Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District.

¶38

iv. Issue appropriate order or direction directing the respondent to (a) grant all benefits and concessions including those under the one time settlement scheme to the petitioner (b) quantify the amounts if any due and further direct the respondent to determine the quantum of property that is required to meet the claim.

¶39

v. Issue an interim direction directing the respondent not to alienate 6.53 Ares of land and the structures thereon in Block No.25 and Resurvey No.

¶40

W.P.C. No. 12737 of 2014

¶41

-2-

¶42

7/7-2 of Peroorkadavu village,, Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District.”

¶43

The main contention put forth by the petitioner is that, the respondent Bank, being a Co-operative Bank, is not entitled to invoke the power and procedure under the SARFAESI Act for realization of the amount due under the loan transaction.

¶44

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the said

¶45

issue had come up for consideration before this Court and as per the decision rendered by a learned Judge as reported in Varghese V. Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2008 (1) KLT 521 and the subsequent ruling by the Division Bench in Georgekutty Abraham V. Kottayam Dist. Co-op. Bank Ltd. 2008 (1) KLT 778, it stands answered against the petitioner.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner might be permitted to wipe off the entire liability in a phased manner, by way of reasonable instalments. It is also pointed out that, pursuant to the coercive proceedings taken by the Bank, physical possession of the building has already been taken over and the petitioner is virtually living on the mercy of others.

¶47

The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that, the total outstanding liability under the loan account as on 9.8.2014 is nearly 4,27,580/-.₹

¶48

W.P.C. No. 12737 of 2014

¶49

-3-

¶50

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the entire liability by way of 'eight' equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 20^th day of December, 2014; followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 20^th of succeeding months. On satisfaction of the initial 'three' instalments, the physical possession shall be restored to the petitioner. Subject to this, the coercive proceedings being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is made clear that, if any default is committed with

¶51

regard to repayment of the entire liability as above, it will be open for the respondent Bank to proceed against the petitioner for realization of the entire amount in a lump, from the stage where it stands now. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.

¶52

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶53

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶54

kp/-

L.Sunil v. the Manager and Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Sunil v. the Manager and Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.K.Neelakandan Vs State of Kerala and Others

Haridas Vs K.P.Antony

P.T.Chandukutty Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Asharaf Vs Hari.S.Nair, Tahzildar, Taluk Office, Thiruvananthapuram.

Krishna Kumar B Vs Satheesh

Sindhu Unnikrishnan Vs State Bank of India