Partly allowed

Mr.Jose N.G v. the Authorized Officer

Kerala HC30 Jul 2015WP(C)/17117/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging SARFAESI proceedings regarding a repossessed vehicle loan, the High Court directed the petitioner to repay the overdue amount in four instalments with regular EMIs. The court ordered the bank to regularize the account upon compliance, allowing resumption of enforcement proceedings upon default.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to discharge the overdue amount in four equal monthly instalments from 20.8.2015 onwards along with regular EMIs; required the Bank to regularize the account upon compliance.

Mr.Jose N.G Vs the Authorized Officer — 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

THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2015/8TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 17117 of 2015 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

JOSE N.G, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 53 YEARS, NETTIKKADAN HOUSE, MELOOR P.O, THRISSUR-680 31

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY

¶9

RESPONDENT :

¶10

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDUSIND BANK LTD., RAMA BHAVAN, PARUTHELI PALAM, TOLL JUNCTION, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

sts

¶14

WP(C).No. 17117 of 2015 (L)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

P1 - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SECURITIZATION ACT.

¶18

P2 - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE MARCH 2015

¶19

P3 - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT.

¶20

P4 - TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MP.NO.3192/15 OF THE CJM THRISSUR.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶27

***************************************************************************** W.P.(C) No.17117 of 2015

¶28

****************************************************************************** Dated this the 30^th day of July, 2015

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner availed a vehicle loan from the respondent

¶31

Bank. He has approached this Court challenging SARFAESI proceedings. The vehicle, admittedly, was repossessed and released to the petitioner based on the interim direction of this Court.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent

¶33

Bank that an overdue amount is around Rs.81,000/- and the total liability is around Rs.3.05 lakhs.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the amount calculated by the respondent Bank.

¶35

With liberty to challenge the quantification of any amount in an appropriate manner, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶36

i. The petitioner shall discharge the overdue amount

¶37

as above in four equal monthly instalments along

¶38

with regular EMI starting from 20.8.2015 onwards.

¶39

W.P.(C) No.17117 of 2015 2

¶40

ii. If the petitioner complies with the above direction,

¶41

the Bank shall regularize the account.

¶42

iii. If the petitioner commits default in remtting anyone of the instalments, the Bank is free to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶45

Mr.Jose N.G v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Jose N.G v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamza Koya Vs the Sub Registrar

Sajeev Abraham Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer, Pala

Sushma Vs the State Bank of India

Deepa Rani Vs Dr.Kowsigan

Limson.a.F. Vs the Authorised Officer

Rajan @ Padmadharan Vs the Idukki District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.