Disposed

Sushma v. the State Bank of India

Kerala HC29 Jul 2015WP(C)/19129/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged SARFAESI proceedings. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum and clear overdue amounts in instalments to regularise the account, reserving the Bank's right to proceed on default. The writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direct the petitioner to deposit ₹25,000 within one month and discharge the entire overdue amount in three monthly instalments; regularise the account on compliance.

Sushma Vs the State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2015/7TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 19129 of 2015 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

SUSHMA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.PANKAJAKSHAN THARAYIL VEEDU, VENMONY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITH KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE, 3RD FLOOR, G BLOCK SYNERGY BUILDING, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX-BANDRA EAST MUMBAI - 400 051.

¶11

2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, VENMONY BRANCH, VENMONY ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -689 509.

¶12

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶13

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, VENMONY BRANCH, VENMONY ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -689 509.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

...2/-

¶18

WP(C).No. 19129 of 2015 (M)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXT. P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE CAUTION NOTICE ISSUED BY BANK DATED 24.11.2014.

¶22

EXT. P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.05.2015.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶28

W.P(C). No. 19129 of 2015

¶29

Dated this the 29^th day of July, 2015

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging SARFAESI proceedings. Petitioner submits that she is prepared to settle the entire overdue amount and Bank may be directed to regularise the account.

¶32

According to the Bank, the overdue amount is around ₹ 68,000/- along with incidental expenses.

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances, following directions are issued:

¶34

(i) The petitioner shall deposit 25,000/- within one month from₹ today.

¶35

(ii) Thereafter the petitioner shall discharge the entire overdue amount in 3 monthly instalments along with regular EMI from the succeeding month onwards.

¶36

(iii) If the petitioner clears the amount as above, the Bank shall regularise the account.

¶37

(iv) If the petitioner commits default in paying any one of the instalments, the Bank is free to proceed against the petitioner.

¶38

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

¶41

Sushma v. the State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma v. the State Bank of India

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

K.P.Mohammed Vs Smt.T.K.Jayanthi

Peter Jolly Vs the District Collector

P.J.Babu Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Hamza Koya Vs the Sub Registrar

Sajeev Abraham Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer, Pala

Binu N.S. Vs the Manager, Federal Bank Ltd.