Disposed

Laila Beevi v. the Indian Overseas Bank

Kerala HC14 Nov 2016WP(C)/12631/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a SARFAESI Act recovery dispute, the Court granted the petitioners three months' time to settle their loan liability with the respondent bank before the bank could initiate possession of the secured asset, citing substantial compliance with interim directions.

What did the court decide?

Respondent bank directed not to take possession of secured asset for three months. Petitioners granted opportunity to settle liability. Bank may take possession if no settlement within period.

Laila Beevi Vs the Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 12631 of 2015 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. LAILA BEEVI,AGED 55,

¶8

W/O. SIRAJUDEEN, VALEL VADAKKATHIL, THAJ TOWERS, THAJ JUNCTION, KAYAMKULAM.

¶9

2. SIRAJUDHEEN, AGED 63, S/O.KASIM, VALEL VADAKKATHIL, THAJ TOWERS, THAJ JUNCTION, KAYAMKULAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.SAJEEB

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, TAM BUILDINGS, M.C. ROAD, THIRUVALLA - 689 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL SHANKAR, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.V.

¶16

WP(C).No. 12631 of 2015 (D)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

----------------------EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OFTHE BUILDING `TAJ TOWER' EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17/09/2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/10/2012. EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/11/2014 IN W.P(C) 22970/2012. EXHIBIT-P5-THE RESPONDENT BANK FILED WRIT APPEAL AGAINST EXHIBIT-P4 ORDER AS W.A 20/2015, WHICH WAS DISMISSED VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 19/01/2015. EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 27/03/2015 UNDER SECTION 13 (4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK. EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONERS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK. EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 08/04/2015. EXHIBIT-P9-TRUE COPY OF THE BRIEF PROPOSAL FOR RESTRUCTURING OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P10-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/04/2015 IN I.A 3693/2015 IN W.P(C) 22970/2012. EXHIBIT-P11-TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 11/04/2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK UNDER SECTION 13 (4). EXHIBIT-P12-TRUE COPY OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT ORDER ISSUED ON 17 APRIL 2015. EXHIBIT-P13-TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR REMITTING RS.3,00,000/EXHIBIT-P14-TRUE COPY OF OTS COMMUNICATION LETTER FROM THE BANK. EXHIBIT-P15-TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL REPORTS.

¶20

EXHIBIT-P16-TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED ON 23.5.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT.

¶21

-2-

¶22

-2WPC 12631 OF 2015:

¶23

I.A.NO 18726/2015

¶24

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT ORDERS ISSUED ON 10.6.2016. EXHIBIT P14 NIL EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR REMITTING RS.10,00,000/RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL -----------------------

¶25

/TRUE COPY/

¶26

P.A.TO JUDGE K.V.

¶27

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 12631 of 2015

¶29

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This writ petition has been filed at a stage when recovery proceedings had been initiated by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act.

¶32

By Ext.P6, a notice had been issued for taking possession of the secured asset. Ext.P11 which is again impugned, is an amended possession notice for taking possession of the secured asset. The total amount of outstanding was 2,39,41,796/- as on 27.3.2015.₹

¶33

The intention expressed by the petitioners was to

¶34

settle the liability and to regularise the loan account. By interim order passed by this Court, the petitioners were directed to pay certain amounts. Rs.30 lakhs has been deposited as per interim order dated 17.4.2016. By another interim order dated 23.5.2016, direction was issued to deposit

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 12631 of 2015

¶36

-2-

¶37

Rs.25 lakhs. Petitioners remitted only Rs.8 lakhs and offered to deposit the balance of Rs.17 lakhs by 10.7.2016. It is later mentioned that the said amount had been deposited. Learned counsel further submits that after the order was passed on 11.7.2016, a further amount of Rs.10 lakhs has been remitted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter is about to be settled. However, the petitioners request three months' time to settle the entire issue between the petitioners and the Bank, including the liability.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank however submits that the offer of one time settlement has been already rejected. The total amount will come to more than Rs.2.3 Crores and therefore there is no reason why this writ petition should be kept pending and further time being granted to the petitioners. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Bank stating that the petitioners had approached this Court earlier and sufficient time has already been granted, which were not complied with.

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 12631 of 2015

¶40

-3-

¶41

However, having regard to the limited request made by the petitioners requesting for three months' time to settle the liability, I am of the view that as a last chance, some time can be granted to the petitioners to settle the liability, especially, on account of the fact that the petitioners had substantially complied with the interim directions issued by this Court and has shown the bonafides to settle the liability.

¶42

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under: (i) The respondent Bank shall not take any steps to

¶43

take possession of the secured asset for a period of three months from today.

¶44

(ii) In the meantime, it shall be open for the petitioners to settle the liability with the Bank and if no settlement is arrived at within the aforesaid period, it shall be open for the respondent Bank to take actual possession in accordance with

¶45

law.

¶46

Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶47

Scl/14.11.2016

Laila Beevi v. the Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laila Beevi v. the Indian Overseas Bank

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

Hotel Roma Central Vs Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.)

Navajeevan Trust Vs State of Kerala

V.M. Abdul Jabbar Vs the Additional Registering Authority

Parvathi Das M Vs the Mahatma Gandhi University

Dr.K.P.Majeed Vs District Collector

Ratnam Vs State of Kerala