Allowed

Chandrika Kunhikkanan v. the Authorised Officer, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC19 Aug 2016WP(C)/20250/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a guarantor residing in secured asset, challenged proceedings for possession. Court refused instalment facility but granted two-month deferment for possession to allow liability settlement. Failure leads to possession.

What did the court decide?

Deferred Advocate Commissioner's possession for two months to allow petitioner to settle liability with Bank.

Chandrika Kunhikkanan Vs the Authorised… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/28TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20250 of 2016 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

CHANDRIKA KUNHIKKANAN, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O KUNHIKKANAN, GOUTHAM VIHAR, THEVUMKUNITHAZHE, PAYYOLI ANGADI, KOZHIKODE-673 523.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR).

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LTD., 11/436, 1ST FLOOR, CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673 001.

¶11

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

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

rs.

¶14

WP(C).No. 20250 of 2016 (E)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶17

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION SALE NOTICE DATED 11.12.2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

¶18

P2 TRUE COPY NOF THE RECEIPT DATED 15.03.2016 ISSUED TO HER HUSBAND T.T.KUNHIKKANNAN BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXT.R1A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.2017/2015.

¶21

EXT.R1B COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER IN SA.273/2015.

¶22

EXT.R1C COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.3135/2016.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶27

W.P.(C).No.20250 of 2016

¶28

Dated this, the 19^th day of August, 2016

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank.

¶31

According to the petitioner, she is the guarantor to the loan transaction and she is residing in the secured asset. According to her she was totally unaware of the proceedings initiated by the Bank and she had come to know about the fact only when the Advocate Commissioner had approached her to take possession of the secured asset. The petitioner submits that some time has to be granted for payment the balance amount due to the Bank in instalments.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank submits that the total outstanding amount will come to 24₹ lakhs and earlier one Aji K.Joseph, the borrower had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.2017/2015 and this Court by judgment dated 08.04.2015 permitted him to discharge the liability by remitting the balance amount in twelve equal monthly instalments starting from 30.04.2015. The said Aji K.Joseph did not comply with the directions issued. Later the petitioner and her husband Sri.T.K.Kunhikannan had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.3135/2016. When the said writ petition came up for hearing,

¶33

W.P.(C).No.20250 of 2016

¶34

¶35

permission was sought for withdrawing the writ petition and hence, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Having regard to the aforesaid situation, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any leniency. It is also submitted that the Bank had put up the property for sale and since the Bank had not obtained vacant possession of the premises, the sale could not fructified.

¶36

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, though the petitioner had offered to settle the liability, I don't think that there is any necessity to grant any instalment facility to the petitioner as such a facility was already granted to the principal borrower Aji K. Joseph. The petitioner is only a guarantor and petitioner was bound by the said direction as well. Though it is contended by the petitioner that she was not aware of the aforesaid direction, still she being a guarantor, is bound by the direction issued by this Court. Now that the Advocate Commissioner had been appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take possession of the premises, the only relief that can be granted to the petitioner is to grant some time to vacate the premises and in the meantime, it shall be open for the petitioner to settle the liability to the respondent Bank.

¶37

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as under :

¶38

The Advocate Commissioner shall defer taking possession of the premises for a period of two months from today.

¶39

W.P.(C).No.20250 of 2016

¶40

¶41

During the aforesaid period, it shall be open for the petitioner to settle the liability with the Bank.

¶42

If the liability is not settled as stated above, it shall be open for the Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the premises and the Bank shall proceed further in accordance

¶43

with law.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶46

Chandrika Kunhikkanan v. the Authorised Officer, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrika Kunhikkanan v. the Authorised Officer, Tamilnad Mercantile 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

Dilsha P.M Vs State of Kerala

Vinith Viswananthan Vs Azeezia Medical College

Bilnamol Vs the University of Calicut

Seethalekshmi R. Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Muthoottu Mini Hotels Pvt.Ltd Vs State

C.S.Rishi Vs the Authorised Officer