Dismissed

Sarojini v. the Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, Federal Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC22 Jun 2015WP(C)/15665/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a surety for her son's overdraft loan, sought relief regarding a secured residential building. The court permitted discharge of the entire liability in 10 monthly instalments, restoring the lien to the bank upon default.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to discharge entire liability in 10 monthly instalments starting 10.07.2015.

Sarojini Vs the Authorized Officer/Chief… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2015/1ST ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 15665 of 2015 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

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

¶8

SAROJINI, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O RAMAKRISHNAN, PANDYAT HOUSE, WADAKKANCHERRY RAILWAY STATION P.O, MANGALAM DESAM WADAKKANCHERRY VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 623

¶9

BY ADV. SRIP.S.SUJETH

¶10

RESPONDENT :

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR - 680 001

¶13

2. BRANCH MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD, WADAKKANCHERRY BRANCH, MANGALAM DESAM, WADAKKANCHERRY VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 623

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 15665 of 2015 (G)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER , ASKING THE PETITIONER TO VACATE THE PREMISES, DATED 05/05/2015.

¶21

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE BRANCH MANAGER, DATED 06/05/2015

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶28

W.P(C). No. 15665 of 2015

¶29

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2015

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner was the surety in an over draft loan availed by her son. Petitioner submits that the whereabouts of his son is not known and she is prepared to pay the amount. She further submits that the secured asset is a residential building.

¶32

According to the Bank the total liability as on date is around Rs.1,70,000/-. It is submitted that Rs.25,000/- has already been paid as ordered by this Court.

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, the secured asset is a residential building, the petitioner shall be permitted to discharge the entire liability in 10 monthly instalments starting from 10.07.2015. If the petitioner fails to pay any one of the instalment the Bank is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner.

¶34

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

¶37

Sarojini v. the Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, Federal Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarojini v. the Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, 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

Indua Towers Ltd. Vs M.G.Rajamanickam

Lakshmikutty Vs Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.

M/S.Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Nelson P.Abraham Vs the Principal, St.Thomas College

Shiyas P.M. Vs the Authorised Officer, Trichur Urban Co-Operative Bank

Peter M.O Vs Sundaram Bnp Paribhas Home Finance Ltd.