Allowed

Jose.K.a. v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC15 Jul 2016OP (DRT)/65/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a petition by senior citizen petitioners seeking time to remit a secured loan amount. Granting indulgence, the court mandated monthly installment payments while allowing the Advocate Commissioner to take possession only upon default.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to repay entire amount with interest in 15 equal monthly installments starting from 20.08.2016; possession by Commissioner restrained pending default.

Jose.K.a. Vs Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2016/24TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

OP (DRT).No. 65 of 2016 (O)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. JOSE.K.A.,

¶8

S/O. KALAN ANTONY, AGED 68 YEARS, KALAN HOUSE, CHERPU P.O.,THRISSUR-680561.

¶9

2. ROSSY, W/O. JOSE, AGED 63 YEARS, KALAN HOUSE, CHERPU P.O., THRISSUR-680561.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.DILIP SRI.SAJU N.A. SMT.G.LEKHA SMT.S.AMBILY SMT.P.J.FLONY SMT.UMA.G.KRISHNAN SMT.DHANYA V.PAVANA SMT.PONNU PRAKASH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. ERODE BRANCH, KACHERY STREET, ERODE, PIN-638004.

¶13

2. THE ZONAL MANAGER

¶14

CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., ZONAL OFFICER, 2ND FLOOR, SIVA COMPLEX, 54, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, COIMBATORE-641 018.

¶15

3. JOSHY, S/O. JOSE, AGED 43 YEARS, VASANTHAM NAGAR, 3/11, PERIYANELLUR, ERODE-638 004.

¶16

4. RUBY, W/O.JOSHY, AGED 37 YEARS, VASANTHAM NAGAR, 3/11, PERIYANELLUR, ERODE-638 004.

¶17

5. THE DEBIT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II,

¶18

IST FLOOR, K.S.H.B.BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682036, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶19

R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN,SC,CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. R5 BY ADV. SMT.C.G.PREETHA, CGC BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶20

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

OP (DRT).No. 65 of 2016 (O)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

----------------------P1 PLAINT IN OS NO.7/2015 DATED 28.12.2015 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR.

¶25

P2 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION DATED 28.12.2015 IN OS 7/2015. P3 PETITION NO.C2 18471/2015 DATED 14.12.2015 FILED BEFORE THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR.

¶26

P4 POP NO.3/2016 DATED 8.3.2016 FILED BEFORE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. P5 CMP NO.1576/2016 IN CMP 1296/2016 DATED 14.3.2016 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR.

¶27

P6 ORDER IN CMP NO.1576/2016 IN CMP 1296/2016 DATED 18.6.2016 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR.

¶28

P7 NOTICE DATED 22.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. P8 S.A.NO.31/2016 DATED 28.6.2016 FILED BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶29

P9 INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.6.2016 IN SA NO.31/2016 BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

LSN

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ============== O.P.(DRT) No. 65 of 2016

¶35

==================

¶36

Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2016

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

During the course of hearing, the petitioners have withdrawn the contentions urged in this original petition. Petitioners only seeks for time to remit the amount as stated by the Tribunal in Ext.P9 order. The facts involved in the case would disclose that the secured asset belongs to the petitioners, which had been mortgaged to the 1^st respondent Bank for loan granted in favour of respondents 3 and 4. Though, the petitioners had challenged the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the property, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing SA No. 31/16, an interim order had been passed as per order dated 29.06.2016 (Ext.P9) restraining the Bank from taking physical possession of the secured asset on the petitioners remitting Rs.15lakhs on or before 11.7.2016.

¶39

Though, it was contended that, the petitioners have right of residence in the property in question and the mortgage was fraudulently created at the instance of the 3^rd respondent, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel

¶40

O.P.(DRT) No. 65 of 2016

¶41

¶42

submits that it would suffice that an instalment facility is granted to remit the entire amount due to the Bank. Having regard to the aforesaid submission, I do not think that there is any necessity to decide the contentions urged on merit. Now that the Advocate Commissioner had been appointed and since the petitioner had not complied with the directions in Ext.P9, it is open for the Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the premises.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, who submits that there is no necessity to grant any further time to the petitioners as they had been delaying the matter even by approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madhurai.

¶44

But having regard to the fact that the petitioners are senior citizens and have agreed to repay the entire liability. I am of the view that some indulgence has to be shown to the petitioners, provided the petitioners to withdraw all matters pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

¶45

Accordingly, this original petition is disposed of as under:

¶46

(i) The petitioners shall repay the entire amount with accrued interest and charges in 15 equal monthly

¶47

O.P.(DRT) No. 65 of 2016

¶48

¶49

instalments starting from 20.08.2016.

¶50

(ii) The Bank shall give a statement of account to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from today.

¶51

(iii) If there is any default committed in payment of any of the instalments, it shall be open for the Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the premises and the Bank shall take further proceedings cc in accordance with law.

¶52

Sd/-A.M.SHAFFIQUE, Judge.

¶53

lsn

Jose.K.a. v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose.K.a. v. Catholic Syrian 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

Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs Union of India

Jose Kumar T Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

M/S. Travancore Rubbers Ltd. Vs the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

Bushara Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Aboobacker Vs the Thahsildar, Koyilandy

Biju S. Vs the Manager, the Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.