Disposed

Suresh M. v. the State Bank of Travancore

Kerala HC17 Nov 2014WP(C)/25677/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam disposed of the writ petition where the petitioner sought quashing of a demand notice and deferment of recovery proceedings. The petitioner settled the outstanding dues via an agreement on the day of the hearing, rendering the writ necessary orders superfluous.

What did the court decide?

The matter was closed as no further orders were necessary following the settlement of dues between parties.

Suresh M. Vs the State Bank of Travancore — 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

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/26TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No.25677 of 2014 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SURESH.M,S/O.MADHAVAN,MUKKADEKAT HOUSE, P.O.ALATHIYOOR - 676 102,TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, TIRUR - 676 101,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE,TIRUR - 676 101, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

R1 BY SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SENIOR S.C) ADVS.SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR R2 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No.25677 of 2014 (H)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1:TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22.01.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶19

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(C) No.25677 of 2014

¶27

Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2014.

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶30

prayers:

¶31

“(i) call for the records leading to the Reveneu Recovery Proceedings under Exhibit P-1 Demand Notice and issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, to quash Exhibit P-1 Demand Notice in RR/2013/3953/10.

¶32

(ii) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the respondents to defer the entire recovery proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of Exhibit P-1 Demand Notice for a period of months so as to enable the petitioner to find out a prospective buyer for sale of 8 cents of land out of 18 cents of his house compound, for paying off the debt due to the 1^st respondent under One Time Settlement Scheme.

¶33

and

¶34

(iii) to issue such other directions or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.”

¶35

When the matter came up for consideration on

¶36

07.10.2014, the following interim order was passed:

¶37

“The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is unable to pay the amount as noted in Ext.P1. He has about 20 cents of property and he could pay of the liability by selling at least 10 cents and the remaining property can be saved. Petitioner is granted one month time to produce an agreement for private sale of the aforesaid property.

¶38

The learned Standing Counsel takes notice on 1^st respondent, and the learned Government Pleader takes

¶39

W.P.(C) No.25677 of 2014

¶40

¶41

notice on the 2^nd respondent. Post after a month.

¶42

In the meantime, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance.”

¶43

The said interim order was extended further on 07.11.2014.

¶44

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Zonal Officer of the respondent Bank has already taken a decision to have the matter settled for a total sum of Rs.5.50,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs fifty four thousand only). In terms of the settlement, the petitioner satisfies a sum of Rupees Five lakhs on 15.11.2014 and the balance amount Rupees Fifty thousand is to be paid on or before 30.11.2014. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank also confirms the position as above.

¶45

In the said circumstances, no further orders are necessary. The submission made across the Bar is recorded. The matter is closed accordingly.

¶46

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

Suresh M. v. the State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh M. v. the State Bank of Travancore

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

Tessy Tomy Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Kerala State Nirmithi Kendra Vs Deputy Tahsildar

E.K.Vijayan Vs Federal Bank Ltd.

Santhosh S Vs T.O.Sooraj

M.a.Abdul Naseer Vs S.Rajamanikyam

Subhadramma Vs Authorised Officer